Behind President Trump’s efforts to step up deportations and block travel from seven mostly Muslim countries lies a goal that reaches far beyond any immediate terrorism threat: a desire to reshape American demographics for the long term and keep out people who Trump and senior aides believe will not assimilate.

“Reshape American demographics!!!” Whoever heard of such a thing? It’s completely unethical for a political party to use immigration policy to try to reshape American demographics to win future elections.

In pursuit of that goal, Trump in his first weeks in office has launched the most dramatic effort in decades to reduce the country’s foreign-born population and set in motion what could become a generational shift in the ethnic makeup of the U.S.

Inconceivable! It’s completely undemocratic for a democratically elected government to exercise some degree of choice over which foreigners are let in and which are not.

Trump and top aides have become increasingly public about their underlying pursuit, pointing to Europe as an example of what they believe is a dangerous path that Western nations have taken. Trump believes European governments have foolishly allowed Muslims with extreme views to settle in their countries, sowing seeds for unrest and recruitment by terrorist groups.

But doesn’t Trump understand that all those people in the Bataclan Theater had it coming? For being white?

“Take a look at what’s happening in Sweden. Take a look at what’s happening in Germany. Take a look at what’s happened in France. Take a look at Nice and Paris,” Trump said Friday during a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference, referring to riots last week in a predominantly Muslim neighborhood in Stockholm, as well as attacks and unrest in similar neighborhoods in Germany and France over the last few years. …

Two days after Trump imposed the ban, a senior administration official told reporters at the White House that the order was part of a larger strategy to develop an immigration system that selects immigrants the White House believes will make “positive contributions” to the country.

“We don’t want a situation where, 20 to 30 years from now, it’s just like a given thing that on a fairly regular basis there is domestic terror strikes, stores are shut up or that airports have explosive devices planted, or people are mowed down in the street by cars and automobiles and things of that nature,” the official said.

Looking 20 or 30 years ahead?

That’s not who we are!

President Obama and his aides also sometimes contrasted the relative lack of terrorism in the U.S. experience with the higher level of violence in Europe.

Because they do things better worse in Europe.

Wait, I’m confused, I thought Europe was more civilized than America? Has NPR been lying to me?

But they attributed the difference to America having done a better job than European countries of assimilating foreign-born residents.

The only reason Mexicans aren’t screaming “Allahu Akbar” while beheading infidels in San Bernardino is because Obama was President and supported comprehensive immigration reform.

Now, watch out, those bloody Latin savages will run amok under Trump.

You know what they say: “Catholicism is the religion of jihad.”

Wait … never mind.

Trump and his aides do not accept that. In their eyes, the U.S. has been spared mostly because its Muslim population remains much smaller than that of France, Germany or other European nations. Muslims make up about 7.5% of the French population, but only about 1% in the U.S., according to estimates by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center.

“Foreign terrorists will not be able to strike America if they cannot get into our country,” Trump said Friday. …

But his argument ignores other big changes in society, critics note.

“If you were going to say, ‘We don’t like that equalization we did in 1965, we need to go back,’ that is going back to a time when the United States was more overtly racist,” said Tanya Golash-Boza, a sociology professor at UC Merced who studies immigration and race.

Tanya Golash-Boza is a blue-eyed blonde lady who, I suspect, would like to have a better job than at forlorn UC Merced in the stoop labor belt. Older UC campuses are usually located in coastal suburban paradises like La Jolla and Santa Barbara, but then there’s Merced.

… Nations, including the U.S., are undermined by too high a level of diversity, Bannon has argued.

“The center core of what we believe, that we’re a nation with an economy, not an economy just in some global marketplace with open borders, but we are a nation with a culture and a — and a reason for being,” Bannon said Thursday at the conservative gathering.

“Rule of law is going to exist when you talk about our sovereignty and you talk about immigration,” Bannon said. …

“Uncontrolled immigration over many years has undermined wages, hurting prospects for people from all backgrounds and all walks of life and has made us less safe,” Miller said. “Proper controls will raise wages, improve employment, help migrant workers enter the middle class who are already living here and keep us safe from the threat of terror.”

Combination of '24 Immigration Act closing the gates to new immigrants and baby boom of native born Americans (including lots of children and grandchildren of the previous wave immigrants who were now counted in the native column).

Yeah, ok, my parents had to suffer through the depression and the War. But then nukes, computers, jet aircraft, going to the moon, low crime, cheap suburban housing, plentiful jobs, lots of marriages and kids, common American citizenship and culture.

It was hell! We damn sure don't want to cut off immigration and have *that* happen again.

Just like the USA has had a static population of eleven million illegals for over a decade.... I suspect in France nationally the numbers are well above 10%, and over 20% in major cities. They wouldn't have the nerve to light up the car-b-cue without significant strength in numbers. I've observed 15% to be the tipping point in Western nations/cities where natives start to notice and get irritated about their displacement.

Merced is about 1/4 Asian and 1/2 Hispanic. There are around 800 whites out of 5,800 undergrads and 5,000 non-whites (and fewer whites and more Hispanics every year) so the blonde Dr. Goulash knows which side her bread is buttered on and it's not that of the "overt racists".

You can see how, if you live and work in that kind of environment, you can come to believe that vibrant minorities have already won the battle and Trumpism is just a rear guard action.

Yeah but the Irish and Italians were once considered non-white in America as well so your concerns are not valid. Brown people will assimilate EXACTLY the same as the “white ethnics” did almost 100 years ago, goy!

Yeah but the Irish and Italians were once considered non-white in America as well so your concerns are not valid.

Demonstrably untrue. Jews, Italians, Irish and other Euros were all allowed to become naturalized citizens during the periods when the First Naturalization Act of 1790, and its successor acts, where in force. These acts limited naturalization to free whites of good moral character. If they hadn't been considered white, they would never have been allowed to naturalize.

I want to thank you for a post even more idiotic than anything I have ever posted . The first Negros landed in this country in 1619 , almost 400 years ago . The only things that they have "assimilated" are straight razors and the EBT.

Trump believes European governments have foolishly allowed Muslims with extreme views to settle in their countries

What an absurd idea! He must be crazy, as the choice of verb clearly indicates. Thank goodness we have principled, agenda-free and disciplined journalists such as Mr Bennett to tell us What It All Means.

The Crusades were defensive wars organised to stop a wave of rape, murder, and subjugation sweeping inexorably toward Europe herself, having already annihilated Christendom in all of western Asia. To deny this self-evident fact is to identify oneself as irrational, evil, or both. It's actually a very helpful topic for quickly assessing what kind of person one is dealing with.

If there were a modern-day nation full of Puritans - Christians like the ones who founded some of the first European colonies in what would eventually become America - I'd be demanding that we keep them out at all costs.

Or, for that matter, any Christians at all from about more than five hundred years or so ago. Their beliefs simply aren't compatible with our society at all, in any way.

There's a modern equivalent to Christianity of five hundred years or more ago, of course, and it's called 'Islam'. Who knows what it might be like, five hundred years from now? I have no idea, and it doesn't matter, because we're dealing with here and now.

How dare Trump interfere with the liberal project of making the working and middle class white extinct. Doesn’t he realize America will only reach its true potential when we have a liberal white elite ruling masses of vibrant people of color?

"How dare Trump interfere with the liberal project of making the working and middle class white extinct. Doesn’t he realize America will only reach its true potential when we have a liberal white elite ruling masses of vibrant people of color?"

Vibrant Diversity ruled by White guys with Italian last names which is the current situation in New York City and Los Angeles with Garcetti & De Blasio.

The graph is really jarring and it kind of vindicates Ted Kennedy, the 1965 law didn’t drastically change the ethnic makeup of USA. Something happened starting in the 90s and was accelerated under Bush/Obama.

It doesn't vindicate Teddy Kennedy because what happened in the 90's couldn't have happened unless the National Origins aspect of pre-1965 immigration policy that favored Europeans had not been stripped away in 1965. Moreover, Teddy was quite enthusiastic about the transformation of the US demographics back in the 1990's, for he was enthusiastically voting for it.

Gruman Corp was replacing it's Native Born White American Male Engineering Workforce with Chinese...Hindu...and Sihk Engineers back in the early 70's-late 70's. And don't forget the influx of Indian doctors in the 1970's...they became a mighty powerfull political lobby for more legal immigrants from India. Both White Republican Politicians and White Democratic Politicians were quite eager to betray the White Working Class very early on...You could have predicted what happened during the 1990's based upon this.

Larger point:invasions must be repelled very early on before the invading army can establish a beachhead and go over the sea-wall...

The graph only shows the number of foreign born, ie those actually born in another country and currently living in the US -- presumably the millions (if not tens of millions) of non-white immigrants who entered since and as a direct result of the changes in 1965 had children born in the US, who do not count as foreign born, but who do contribute to 'changing the ethnic makeup' of the country, right?

The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, abolished an earlier quota system based on national origin and established a new immigration policy based on reuniting immigrant families and attracting skilled labor to the United States. Over the next four decades, the policies put into effect in 1965 would greatly change the demographic makeup of the American population, as immigrants entering the United States under the new legislation came increasingly from countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, as opposed to Europe.

The big increase in the foreign born population is due to quite a large extent to illegal immigration.

The 1965 law that people here so love to talk about has nothing to do with illegal immigration., by definition. Illegal immigration is immigration that occurs against the law. To the extent the government is involved, it is due to refusal or inability to enforce, which is an executive branch issue. The lack of enforcement is a Globalization Era feature, though the Reagan Amnesty of 1986 didn't help.

Really the big argument for electing Trump, despite the fact that the composition of Congress was not going to change (it actually became slightly more Democratic), is that Trump could at least direct the federal government to enforce the law. Really the success of his administration comes down to whether he can do that and keep the US out of more wars, both purely executive branch functions.

The immigration Act of 1990 was far more detrimental to American Demographics, it created the Greencard Lottery, increased legal immigration by 50% and created the H1B visa program to name just 3 aspects of the bill which need to be reversed. This Bill was signed just 4 years after Amnesty was granted to 3 million Mexicans. The two measures effectively altered America for good.

imagine the graph without the 1965 act - it would have carried on going down

the halt on immigration in 1924 is why the graph was going down - a foreign born immigrant who was ten in 1924 would be 51 in 1965 - as people who'd immigrated before 1924 died off the graph would have carried on going down

so you really have two graphs overlaying each other - the 1924 one where the numbers were decreasing overlaid by the 1965 one where the numbers started increasing again

initially the two trends cancelled each other out - new arrivals cancelled out by the last of the pre 1924 group dying - when the last of the 1924 group were gone the graph shoots up

(as well as all the other stuff that happened later like amnesties etc)

“Reshape American demographics!!!” Whoever heard of such a thing? It’s completely unethical for a political party to use immigration policy to try to reshape American demographics to win future elections.

We sure as heck were shaping demographics when he showed Russian Jews a (oh noes!) religious preference and allowed them in as refugees meaning they did not impact the normal yearly quotas of immigrants. So now DJT wants to shape immigration so we allow in fewer Muslims. btw 60% or more of refugees coming in for the last few years are Muslim and currently the vile leftist State Department + Obama did not lift a finger to allow in Syrian Christian refugees. All we got were Muslim ones. OK maybe ten Christians.

Behind Senator Kennedy’s efforts to step up immigration and increase travel from innumerable, mostly hostile and unassimilable countries lies a goal that reaches far beyond any immediate Communism threat: a desire to reshape American demographics for the long term and let in people whom the Founding Fathers and others with brains in their heads and eyes to see believed would not assimilate.

In pursuit of that goal, Kennedy has launched the most dramatic effort in decades to reduce the country’s native-born population and set in motion what could become a generational shift in the ethnic makeup of the U.S.A.

How dare Trump interfere with the liberal project of making the working and middle class white extinct. Doesn't he realize America will only reach its true potential when we have a liberal white elite ruling masses of vibrant people of color?

“How dare Trump interfere with the liberal project of making the working and middle class white extinct. Doesn’t he realize America will only reach its true potential when we have a liberal white elite ruling masses of vibrant people of color?”

Vibrant Diversity ruled by White guys with Italian last names which is the current situation in New York City and Los Angeles with Garcetti & De Blasio.

Each mugshot is of a criminal turned over to immigration. Note these are not Guatemalan or Mexican stoop laborers but illegal aliens nonetheless and they are being deported for domestic violence, driving with a suspended license and other picayune offenses. OTOH major Florida population centers like Hillsborough County have turned no one over to ICE! Its up to the county sheriff.

Turning out of office a weak sheriff isn’t that hard to do. Most people don’t even know who their county sheriff is so a determined group can swing enough votes to get rid of sheriff who protects criminal aliens from deportation.

The graph is really jarring and it kind of vindicates Ted Kennedy, the 1965 law didn't drastically change the ethnic makeup of USA. Something happened starting in the 90s and was accelerated under Bush/Obama.

The graph is really jarring and it kind of vindicates Ted Kennedy, the 1965 law didn't drastically change the ethnic makeup of USA. Something happened starting in the 90s and was accelerated under Bush/Obama.

It doesn’t vindicate Teddy Kennedy because what happened in the 90′s couldn’t have happened unless the National Origins aspect of pre-1965 immigration policy that favored Europeans had not been stripped away in 1965. Moreover, Teddy was quite enthusiastic about the transformation of the US demographics back in the 1990′s, for he was enthusiastically voting for it.

Gruman Corp was replacing it’s Native Born White American Male Engineering Workforce with Chinese…Hindu…and Sihk Engineers back in the early 70′s-late 70′s. And don’t forget the influx of Indian doctors in the 1970′s…they became a mighty powerfull political lobby for more legal immigrants from India. Both White Republican Politicians and White Democratic Politicians were quite eager to betray the White Working Class very early on…You could have predicted what happened during the 1990′s based upon this.

Larger point:invasions must be repelled very early on before the invading army can establish a beachhead and go over the sea-wall…

The graph is really jarring and it kind of vindicates Ted Kennedy, the 1965 law didn't drastically change the ethnic makeup of USA. Something happened starting in the 90s and was accelerated under Bush/Obama.

Are we looking at the same graph?

The one I’m looking at is still pretty flat at 1965 but by @1970 it starts to lift off. As you might expect, the early stages after 1965 didn’t have much effect. Then in 1990 it really accelerates.

Urban Europe, even in “no go zones” like Marseille or Birmingham, is still much safer than urban America. The biggest long-term threat to Europe is sub Saharan African immigration, not Muslims. The US crossed that threshold centuries ago.

The idea that America is a “white nation” is kind of a joke, it hasn’t been a white nation since the 17th century. Even today Germany or France are still far whiter places than the US. You have to live outside the US to see how much US culture and history has been shaped by having a large poorly assimilated African population making up more than 10% of the population for over three centuries now.

Europeans need to be concerned about Islamic immigration. For the US Islamic immigration is at best a distraction from the real demographic issues the country faces.

Have a friend who worked in black Africa a few years and now works in Saudi Arabia. He much prefers Saudi Arabia, much safer. Of course the strict Islamic laws help but black African countries you constantly live in fear for your life, you simply can't walk the streets.

Part of the South were majority black or close to it from the time of the Revolution onward. Only the great waves of wretched refuse type immigrants kept America from becoming almost as vibrant as the Caribbean.

"For the US Islamic immigration is at best a distraction from the real demographic issues the country faces."

That is no reason not to curtail or stop it. It would demonstrate that it is possible to restrict immigration from a particular place, and serve as a precedent. And if the white American public can't be persuaded to stop muslim immigration, then they won't stop anything ever, and we are doomed.

There is also another problem with it, apart from numbers. Even a relatively small number of muslims might convert large numbers of blacks and latinos to Islam. And nobody needs that.

We seem in agreement that there should be no immigration into the USA from Africa? As to the tens of millions of Africans who are already here, what should we do with them while they are killing, raping, robbing, and assaulting at wildly disproportionate rates.

The idea that America is a “white nation” is kind of a joke, it hasn’t been a white nation since the 17th century.

Nonsense. History has its impact and there's no denying demographics--having Africans around--has its effect. But the US was 90% white when i was a pup. But more than demographics, it was *culturally*, morally, legally very very white--without apology. A western European had no trouble decamping to the US and feeling comfortable.

The deconstruction of whiteness in the US is happened during my lifetime. Slowly at first, mainstreaming black culture and behavior, but then ramping up as minoritarianism was pushed as a general ideology. But the US would still feel very white if it wasn't for the 1965 immigration act, and firing up mass immigration, allowing illegal entry and the '86 amnesty.

~~~
I'll also note, that Europe is much *worse* shape than people think. Folks see the changes--i was in Paris a couple years back and thought "what a disaster" and i was in the center city, not Saint-Denis. But they underestimate demographic "momentum"--basically who is having the kids. Steve's article on estimating French minorities from sickle-cell testing gets at the issue.

Lots of folks have some sort of aversion to thinking clearly about biology and doing basic math. But childless old Frau Merkel's fit of waving in young muslim men created a minority the relative size of the US black population in 1960, *in one year*. There may be 80 million Germans, but there aren't 80 Germans of breeding age. There are about 10 million German males in the current breeding generation--and fewer coming in the next one. Those men Merkel imported--if not sent back--will either replace a large number of German men in breeding German women, or will eventually be allowed to bring in their own women from the old country. So effectively Merkel created a 10% minority group--a nasty, contentions, non- assimilating one--roughly scale of the US's black population, and created not via a long history of slavery, or through the remnants of conquered peoples, or a long history of imperial conquests ... in one year, in a fit of globalist preening pique.

Western Europe's in better shape than the US now, but its importing an even more troublesome and contentious minorities, who are growing in proportion very very fast.

Europe's native population is going to have to revolt and expel the invaders *right now* or it's doomed.

The graph is really jarring and it kind of vindicates Ted Kennedy, the 1965 law didn't drastically change the ethnic makeup of USA. Something happened starting in the 90s and was accelerated under Bush/Obama.

Is that what you get from that graph? Because it’s the exact opposite of what I get from that graph. 1965 is clearly the inflection point.

The graph is really jarring and it kind of vindicates Ted Kennedy, the 1965 law didn't drastically change the ethnic makeup of USA. Something happened starting in the 90s and was accelerated under Bush/Obama.

the 1965 law didn’t drastically change the ethnic makeup of USA

The graph only shows the number of foreign born, ie those actually born in another country and currently living in the US — presumably the millions (if not tens of millions) of non-white immigrants who entered since and as a direct result of the changes in 1965 had children born in the US, who do not count as foreign born, but who do contribute to ‘changing the ethnic makeup’ of the country, right?

The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, abolished an earlier quota system based on national origin and established a new immigration policy based on reuniting immigrant families and attracting skilled labor to the United States. Over the next four decades, the policies put into effect in 1965 would greatly change the demographic makeup of the American population, as immigrants entering the United States under the new legislation came increasingly from countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, as opposed to Europe.

Wait? What? They put the graph in the tweet and article and it was written by an Anglo man over 40 from LA? And he really doesn’t understand from all that why limiting immigration isn’t a good idea?

Jesus Christ they are in a bubble! That he put that graph in the tweet indicates that he genuinely doesn’t understand why a sane person is more likely to support an end to immigration after seeing that, no matter what is in the article, scary.

"Welcome to Sweden, strapping young refugee. Here is your rifle, the front is in that direction. Yes, finally you can have your vengeance on the Russians. Hey, come back!"

Well, that would be the best case, don't forget we got a lot of those. But rather it seems a long series of dumb decisions are converging like chickens coming home to roost; great work Swedish leaders. You know that money you could have spent on rearming Sweden? Already spent on refugees.

Looking back on the events of the past twenty-four years it really does seem as if there’s been a deliberate engineering of demographics in this country. Things like importing Somalis into Minnesota appear to have been according to some sort of plan. The last three presidents in retrospect increasingly look like crap, don’t they? I’m glad some people are waking up to this.

Couldn’t we take a page from medicine and inject already-dead Muslims, for example, into the body politic instead of the virulent, still-living ones? That way we could stimulate whatever is the analog to immunity without running the risk of our being overtaken by the disease.

Urban Europe, even in "no go zones" like Marseille or Birmingham, is still much safer than urban America. The biggest long-term threat to Europe is sub Saharan African immigration, not Muslims. The US crossed that threshold centuries ago.

The idea that America is a "white nation" is kind of a joke, it hasn't been a white nation since the 17th century. Even today Germany or France are still far whiter places than the US. You have to live outside the US to see how much US culture and history has been shaped by having a large poorly assimilated African population making up more than 10% of the population for over three centuries now.

Europeans need to be concerned about Islamic immigration. For the US Islamic immigration is at best a distraction from the real demographic issues the country faces.

>You have to live outside the US to see how much US culture and history has been shaped by having a large poorly assimilated African population

Disagree, I can see that very clearly living in the US. However… I have lived outside.

Urban Europe, even in "no go zones" like Marseille or Birmingham, is still much safer than urban America. The biggest long-term threat to Europe is sub Saharan African immigration, not Muslims. The US crossed that threshold centuries ago.

The idea that America is a "white nation" is kind of a joke, it hasn't been a white nation since the 17th century. Even today Germany or France are still far whiter places than the US. You have to live outside the US to see how much US culture and history has been shaped by having a large poorly assimilated African population making up more than 10% of the population for over three centuries now.

Europeans need to be concerned about Islamic immigration. For the US Islamic immigration is at best a distraction from the real demographic issues the country faces.

Have a friend who worked in black Africa a few years and now works in Saudi Arabia. He much prefers Saudi Arabia, much safer. Of course the strict Islamic laws help but black African countries you constantly live in fear for your life, you simply can’t walk the streets.

The graph is really jarring and it kind of vindicates Ted Kennedy, the 1965 law didn't drastically change the ethnic makeup of USA. Something happened starting in the 90s and was accelerated under Bush/Obama.

The big increase in the foreign born population is due to quite a large extent to illegal immigration.

The 1965 law that people here so love to talk about has nothing to do with illegal immigration., by definition. Illegal immigration is immigration that occurs against the law. To the extent the government is involved, it is due to refusal or inability to enforce, which is an executive branch issue. The lack of enforcement is a Globalization Era feature, though the Reagan Amnesty of 1986 didn’t help.

Really the big argument for electing Trump, despite the fact that the composition of Congress was not going to change (it actually became slightly more Democratic), is that Trump could at least direct the federal government to enforce the law. Really the success of his administration comes down to whether he can do that and keep the US out of more wars, both purely executive branch functions.

He can not only direct the rest of the federal government to enforce our immigration and border laws, he can issue executive orders that exclude entire classes of potential immigrants or visitors entirely without permission from congress or the courts, properly understood.

The big increase in the foreign born population is due to quite a large extent to illegal immigration.

With the illegal aliens dropping anchor babies as soon as possible to immunize them against deportation. I remember visiting Savannah Georgia 25 years ago and looking at the local paper, a Chinese couple had jumped ship. Wife was pregnant so where do you think the baby was going to be born? Even back then I was angry at the USA being suckered

There ought to be a nice derisive shorthand word or phrase to capture this view .”White genocide” doesn’t work– both because no one knows who is doing what to whom, and also because “genocide” means killing to most people, not some cultural concept. How about “inundationist”? Best I can come up with this morning.

Merced is about 1/4 Asian and 1/2 Hispanic. There are around 800 whites out of 5,800 undergrads and 5,000 non-whites (and fewer whites and more Hispanics every year) so the blonde Dr. Goulash knows which side her bread is buttered on and it’s not that of the “overt racists”.

You can see how, if you live and work in that kind of environment, you can come to believe that vibrant minorities have already won the battle and Trumpism is just a rear guard action.

Merced campus itself was founded in 2005 and its student population is as you say.

There were a lot of Ed Biz outposts formed at that time with the sole goal of becoming money lenders on the one hand and harvesting federal diversibucks with the other. A lot of previously founded schools built the same revenue streams into their balance sheets.

Golash (isn't that a Chechen surname?) herself got in on the ground floor of the Immigration Grievance industry (2000/pre-9/11), which is a mask for the Immigrant Farming industry. She is likely Hillariously furious about the New Glass Ceiling for which the Deplorables voted.

Her blog:http://getalifephd.blogspot.com/p/about-me.html

Her CV:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Cf1_KkXhO1KctAx8h7J7yI2aQuGxGOPLn905d9Llnkc/edit

She seems to have a work ethic, soldiering away on behalf of open borders to anyone who will give her an outlet. She appears strategically smart enough to understand the advertising/promotional aspect of the Ed Biz, where "academic" success correlates with picking a message and staying on it tenaciously till you find your customer base:

Anyone unfamiliar with the Ed Biz might find her blog useful for getting a peek inside that industry.

For instance this piece above reveals the layers of careerist flab that thickly batten the "peer review" publishing process. It's not what you have to say that matters or whether it's accurate or sensible. It's whether you can eventually score enough publishing points. The videogame/crowdvoted-Internet model of professional achievement. (I've long felt that the Ed Biz is GamerWorld for females.)

I've seen this syndrome often in the Ed Biz among bright but not too bright people who, by nature, are reasonably hard working. They end up doing silly things for a living, like generating utopian fantasies about remaking the world in their own Unicorn Princess image. This may in fact be all they can do.

However I keep returning to the fact that, in the decades where bad deals and bad economic policies ruled, these Ed Biz organizations/institutions became major employers. Including of native-born women and some men seeking to replace income lost first in deindustrialization, then in demographic warfare.

This is one of the more complicated Immigrant Farming schemes...aptly located there in the massively irrigated San Joaquin Valley.

Urban Europe, even in "no go zones" like Marseille or Birmingham, is still much safer than urban America. The biggest long-term threat to Europe is sub Saharan African immigration, not Muslims. The US crossed that threshold centuries ago.

The idea that America is a "white nation" is kind of a joke, it hasn't been a white nation since the 17th century. Even today Germany or France are still far whiter places than the US. You have to live outside the US to see how much US culture and history has been shaped by having a large poorly assimilated African population making up more than 10% of the population for over three centuries now.

Europeans need to be concerned about Islamic immigration. For the US Islamic immigration is at best a distraction from the real demographic issues the country faces.

Part of the South were majority black or close to it from the time of the Revolution onward. Only the great waves of wretched refuse type immigrants kept America from becoming almost as vibrant as the Caribbean.

Which Southern states were close to majority black. Arkansas generally has one of the highest percentages of black population in the South and it wasn't even close to majority black during the pre-1924 immigration wave.

The argument that mass immigration has suppressed the black share of the US population has been advanced by respectable people, including yourself, but it's not really true.

It is true that the black share of US population was at its highest at the time of the War of Independence. And that it then decreased continuously until the 20th century and the founding of the welfare state. But most of that time the white population increased from natural growth, not immigration. It is not widely remembered now, but early population growth rates in the US were above 3%, rates nowadays usually seen only in sub-Saharan Africa.

Prior to the founding of the welfare state, most of the population growth came from the prosperous middle class. The highly fecund underclass is an artifact of the modern welfare state. (It is also catastrophically dysgenic, but I digress.)

So from Independence until the Welfare era, the black portion of the US was declining, with or without immigration. There are nuances, to be sure: iSteve-ish affordable family formation may have been adversely affected by immigration waves, for example. But to say, "only the great waves of wretched refuse type immigrants kept America from becoming almost as vibrant as the Caribbean" is plainly false.

This response is in the spirit of admiring improvement of the work of one of my preferred commenters.

Does anyone in the Bannon-Sessions-Miller universe ever talk about birthrate? It’s the other huge piece of the puzzle, and it doesn’t take too much insight to notice that. Is it just too politically incorrect for even them to talk about, or do they not see it as a concern / something that can be impacted by policy?

The big increase in the foreign born population is due to quite a large extent to illegal immigration.

The 1965 law that people here so love to talk about has nothing to do with illegal immigration., by definition. Illegal immigration is immigration that occurs against the law. To the extent the government is involved, it is due to refusal or inability to enforce, which is an executive branch issue. The lack of enforcement is a Globalization Era feature, though the Reagan Amnesty of 1986 didn't help.

Really the big argument for electing Trump, despite the fact that the composition of Congress was not going to change (it actually became slightly more Democratic), is that Trump could at least direct the federal government to enforce the law. Really the success of his administration comes down to whether he can do that and keep the US out of more wars, both purely executive branch functions.

Even with respect to legal immigration, the executive branch (despite the recent 9th Circuit decisions) has enormous discretion as to who it lets in and who it doesn’t.

Unfortunately, as loony as this stuff is — and it’s pretty loony — it does bring to light the problem for immigration restrictionists; specifically, respectable politicians and idea men on the right using fear of terrorism as a pretext for closing the borders, when the truth is we really are trying to preserve the majority European racial composition of our country, just like this professor alleges. We’re not allowed to say that, of course, because that’s racist, so we have to frighten the horses with visions of jihadists streaming across the southern border. Even the border wall I take to be largely symbolic. If somebody really wants to get in, they can probably pull it off. But if we build the thing, in 20 or 40 years our kids and grandkids will at least be reminded that there’s this thing called a border and that attempts by the Los Angeles City Council to effectively merge with Mexico might be unconstitutional, or something.

My reaction to this article is, "I wish." Because I think the Trump administration actually does care too much about terrorism. They also care about restricting immigration period, and less so restricting non-legacy American immigration.

Were the "real " thesis accurate my reaction would be "So what?" Why the hell can't we make it a goal to have fewer Muslims?

What happened between 1930 and 1970 on that chart? Where the foreign-born leaving or just dying off?

Combination of ’24 Immigration Act closing the gates to new immigrants and baby boom of native born Americans (including lots of children and grandchildren of the previous wave immigrants who were now counted in the native column).

children and grandchildren of the previous wave immigrants who were now counted in the native column

This is the "fat tail" of immigration that doesn't get enough discussion since it's against the Zeroth Amendment to question whether perhaps anyone born in the U.S. is less culturally American and inclined to American values and traditions than George Washington (who owned slaves).

I find it interesting that people will bemoan how “divided” the U.S. is and how we “can’t get anything done” politically, but these same people will wail and moan when you point out that the foreign born population is just short of historic highs (1 in 6) and the highest in absolute terms. If you count unassimilated children of foreign born (who may or may not be fluent in English) and the relative higher child per woman rate of foreign-born, you begin to see that a large cause of the division is that Americans no longer share a common history, traditions, mores, etc. and hew to the traditions of their nations of origin. There are entire swaths of the United States where U.S. born children don’t speak English – not just in the Southwest and California.

In fact, now the media tells us that mentioning that immigration is a cause of divisiveness is itself incandescently divisive.

I am always bemused and astounded by professors’ CVs. Here we have a woman with a PhD (albeit from one of our nation’s best public universities) in one of the softest subjects, now teaching at a very pedestrian University. Notwithstanding that, she has 28 page CV.

Knowing the limit is generally one page, has anyone in the real world ever submitted a resume with more than even 2 or 3 pages? What could possibly be so important to a professor’s work as to include it on page 28? What a simple yet perfect example of professors being completely detached from the real world.

Combination of '24 Immigration Act closing the gates to new immigrants and baby boom of native born Americans (including lots of children and grandchildren of the previous wave immigrants who were now counted in the native column).

children and grandchildren of the previous wave immigrants who were now counted in the native column

This is the “fat tail” of immigration that doesn’t get enough discussion since it’s against the Zeroth Amendment to question whether perhaps anyone born in the U.S. is less culturally American and inclined to American values and traditions than George Washington (who owned slaves).

“It’s completely undemocratic for a democratically elected government to exercise some degree of choice over which foreigners are let in and which are not.”

That actually is their exact position. Politicians control immigration, but voters have no right to tell the politicians they want less immigration, and only a demagogue would dare make it an issue in a campaign.

Urban Europe, even in "no go zones" like Marseille or Birmingham, is still much safer than urban America. The biggest long-term threat to Europe is sub Saharan African immigration, not Muslims. The US crossed that threshold centuries ago.

The idea that America is a "white nation" is kind of a joke, it hasn't been a white nation since the 17th century. Even today Germany or France are still far whiter places than the US. You have to live outside the US to see how much US culture and history has been shaped by having a large poorly assimilated African population making up more than 10% of the population for over three centuries now.

Europeans need to be concerned about Islamic immigration. For the US Islamic immigration is at best a distraction from the real demographic issues the country faces.

The USA was about ninety percent white in 1960. That is a white nation, period.

Urban Europe, even in "no go zones" like Marseille or Birmingham, is still much safer than urban America. The biggest long-term threat to Europe is sub Saharan African immigration, not Muslims. The US crossed that threshold centuries ago.

The idea that America is a "white nation" is kind of a joke, it hasn't been a white nation since the 17th century. Even today Germany or France are still far whiter places than the US. You have to live outside the US to see how much US culture and history has been shaped by having a large poorly assimilated African population making up more than 10% of the population for over three centuries now.

Europeans need to be concerned about Islamic immigration. For the US Islamic immigration is at best a distraction from the real demographic issues the country faces.

“For the US Islamic immigration is at best a distraction from the real demographic issues the country faces.”

That is no reason not to curtail or stop it. It would demonstrate that it is possible to restrict immigration from a particular place, and serve as a precedent. And if the white American public can’t be persuaded to stop muslim immigration, then they won’t stop anything ever, and we are doomed.

There is also another problem with it, apart from numbers. Even a relatively small number of muslims might convert large numbers of blacks and latinos to Islam. And nobody needs that.

Urban Europe, even in "no go zones" like Marseille or Birmingham, is still much safer than urban America. The biggest long-term threat to Europe is sub Saharan African immigration, not Muslims. The US crossed that threshold centuries ago.

The idea that America is a "white nation" is kind of a joke, it hasn't been a white nation since the 17th century. Even today Germany or France are still far whiter places than the US. You have to live outside the US to see how much US culture and history has been shaped by having a large poorly assimilated African population making up more than 10% of the population for over three centuries now.

Europeans need to be concerned about Islamic immigration. For the US Islamic immigration is at best a distraction from the real demographic issues the country faces.

We seem in agreement that there should be no immigration into the USA from Africa? As to the tens of millions of Africans who are already here, what should we do with them while they are killing, raping, robbing, and assaulting at wildly disproportionate rates.

Meanwhile, we have a friend who was laid off from his IT job near Los Angeles and has not yet landed a new job after several months. He's a native-born white American U.S. Citizen, though, so why give a damn about HIM.

Amazing, though, that his white privilege didn't stop him and his wife and kids from having to vacate their apartment early and move in with friends.

The big increase in the foreign born population is due to quite a large extent to illegal immigration.

The 1965 law that people here so love to talk about has nothing to do with illegal immigration., by definition. Illegal immigration is immigration that occurs against the law. To the extent the government is involved, it is due to refusal or inability to enforce, which is an executive branch issue. The lack of enforcement is a Globalization Era feature, though the Reagan Amnesty of 1986 didn't help.

Really the big argument for electing Trump, despite the fact that the composition of Congress was not going to change (it actually became slightly more Democratic), is that Trump could at least direct the federal government to enforce the law. Really the success of his administration comes down to whether he can do that and keep the US out of more wars, both purely executive branch functions.

Yes, but legal immigration drives illegal immigration.

Cousin Jose is doing great in the US! he’s got a job and is sending home money. Why don’t you go up and work with him, Hector?

The big increase in the foreign born population is due to quite a large extent to illegal immigration.

The 1965 law that people here so love to talk about has nothing to do with illegal immigration., by definition. Illegal immigration is immigration that occurs against the law. To the extent the government is involved, it is due to refusal or inability to enforce, which is an executive branch issue. The lack of enforcement is a Globalization Era feature, though the Reagan Amnesty of 1986 didn't help.

Really the big argument for electing Trump, despite the fact that the composition of Congress was not going to change (it actually became slightly more Democratic), is that Trump could at least direct the federal government to enforce the law. Really the success of his administration comes down to whether he can do that and keep the US out of more wars, both purely executive branch functions.

He can not only direct the rest of the federal government to enforce our immigration and border laws, he can issue executive orders that exclude entire classes of potential immigrants or visitors entirely without permission from congress or the courts, properly understood.

There ought to be a nice derisive shorthand word or phrase to capture this view ."White genocide" doesn't work-- both because no one knows who is doing what to whom, and also because "genocide" means killing to most people, not some cultural concept. How about "inundationist"? Best I can come up with this morning.

Nobody knows what inundation means in the general public, especially the nonwhite public.

I find it interesting that people will bemoan how "divided" the U.S. is and how we "can't get anything done" politically, but these same people will wail and moan when you point out that the foreign born population is just short of historic highs (1 in 6) and the highest in absolute terms. If you count unassimilated children of foreign born (who may or may not be fluent in English) and the relative higher child per woman rate of foreign-born, you begin to see that a large cause of the division is that Americans no longer share a common history, traditions, mores, etc. and hew to the traditions of their nations of origin. There are entire swaths of the United States where U.S. born children don't speak English - not just in the Southwest and California.

In fact, now the media tells us that mentioning that immigration is a cause of divisiveness is itself incandescently divisive.

“I find it interesting that people will bemoan how “divided” the U.S. is and how we “can’t get anything done” politically,”

Globalist have gotten plenty done.

The “can’t get anything done (because of x)” rhetoric only comes out for non-globalist policy proposals, from either the left or the right. Globalists like to conceal how much power they really have.

Part of the South were majority black or close to it from the time of the Revolution onward. Only the great waves of wretched refuse type immigrants kept America from becoming almost as vibrant as the Caribbean.

Which Southern states were close to majority black. Arkansas generally has one of the highest percentages of black population in the South and it wasn’t even close to majority black during the pre-1924 immigration wave.

Somewhat related, Drudge notes that A. Obama’s advisor Valerie Jarrett … HAS MOVED INTO HIS HOUSE in DC, and is coordinating the attack on Trump, with the aim of removing him by impeachment or forcing him to resign; and B. Sessions is on the way out with Democratic Senators and “Sing along with Mitch” McConnell aiming to remove him over allegations that he played footsie and got cooties with Russia, or something.

What ex President EVER stuck around DC and had his chief advisor … MOVE INTO HIS HOUSE?

Is that weird, or what? Like I said, Obama has designs to remove Trump and saunter back into the White House as the latter day American version of his cousin Raila Odinga. And just as you can draw a genetic line from the political behavior of George Herbert Walker Bush, W Bush, and El Jebe!, you can do the same for cousin Odinga and Obama. Whose grandfather was a Mau Mau and father wanted according to his own autobiography to kick out all non Africans from Kenya.

Which as Steve noted, Obama approved of in that restaurant scene in Nairobi with his half-sister, after poor service from the Indian owners mistaking them for native (poor tipper) Kenyans in favor of (big tipper) White tourists.

All this stuff is being coordinated. Of course, among the elites and their “revolt” against the masses, or as Derbyshire would say the GoodWhite-BadWhite war, there already exists a considerable appetite for shattering the “safe, boring” White male world that produces wealth and security but not enough “sexy danger” that the Eat-Pray-Love crowd seeks out.

The Obamas' residence in DC is indeed strange, and seems to be largely overlooked by the media, even those on the right.

I recall we had a discussion here when the Obamas announced last year that they would be staying. I think the conclusion was that no president since the semi-invalid Woodrow Wilson had done this, and that it was not a sign of good things to come.

It's a worrisome precedent, and the Obamas seem already to be taking advantage of their presence in DC to stir up trouble.

For Trump and his acolytes, American identity is basically how Samuel Huntington defined it. A variant of WASP and some european features. The rest is considered as “externalities” or evolutionary accidents.

For Trump and his acolytes, American identity is basically how Samuel Huntington defined it. A variant of WASP and some european features. The rest is considered as “externalities” or evolutionary accidents.

One reason for the explosion after 1990 was the doubling of legal immigration passed around that time by a Democratic congress and signed into law by the first Bush. No threat of veto from him of course.

Part of the South were majority black or close to it from the time of the Revolution onward. Only the great waves of wretched refuse type immigrants kept America from becoming almost as vibrant as the Caribbean.

AFIK blacks have been 13% of the US population for some time. But now I gather Hispanics are about 17%.

So, roughly speaking, if Hispanics had not arrived blacks would be about 13/70 ~ 15% of the population.

Doesn’t seem like whites have done a very good job of suppressing black births. Or perhaps it’s that blacks have managed to suppress white births.

Prosperity and urban living suppressesall births. If I recall correctly, immigrants from Latin America tend to have high fertility in the first generation, then assimilate to the American rate. And this fits the pattern observable all over the world--given first world living standards, family sizes drop to replacement level or lower. A few religious groups (Mormons and Orthodox Jews) manage to keep higher fertility, but most people in first world conditions don't have enough kids to keep the population stable.

“Gulash-Bozo” sounds like a name you would create if you were parodying a Soviet commissar.

Yeah, it belongs next to “Premier Kissov” and “Ambassador de Sadeski”.

There ought to be a nice derisive shorthand word or phrase to capture this view .”White genocide” doesn’t work– both because no one knows who is doing what to whom, and also because “genocide” means killing to most people, not some cultural concept. How about “inundationist”? Best I can come up with this morning.

How about “Silent Holocaust”? What with the term already working to the satisfaction of Jews, and all.

I’ve been in London four times in my life and I recall that the last time I was there, about 15 years ago I thought to myself ‘Where the hell are the English? It feels like I’m in the world’s biggest bus station.’
Despite how the L.A. Times editors feel, I don’t think most Americans want to feel that way about the U.S.

There ought to be a nice derisive shorthand word or phrase to capture this view ."White genocide" doesn't work-- both because no one knows who is doing what to whom, and also because "genocide" means killing to most people, not some cultural concept. How about "inundationist"? Best I can come up with this morning.

The big increase in the foreign born population is due to quite a large extent to illegal immigration.

The 1965 law that people here so love to talk about has nothing to do with illegal immigration., by definition. Illegal immigration is immigration that occurs against the law. To the extent the government is involved, it is due to refusal or inability to enforce, which is an executive branch issue. The lack of enforcement is a Globalization Era feature, though the Reagan Amnesty of 1986 didn't help.

Really the big argument for electing Trump, despite the fact that the composition of Congress was not going to change (it actually became slightly more Democratic), is that Trump could at least direct the federal government to enforce the law. Really the success of his administration comes down to whether he can do that and keep the US out of more wars, both purely executive branch functions.

The big increase in the foreign born population is due to quite a large extent to illegal immigration.

With the illegal aliens dropping anchor babies as soon as possible to immunize them against deportation. I remember visiting Savannah Georgia 25 years ago and looking at the local paper, a Chinese couple had jumped ship. Wife was pregnant so where do you think the baby was going to be born? Even back then I was angry at the USA being suckered

Forgot to mention that this Chinese couple was in the birth tourism vanguard because they immediately filed for asylum based on the ChiComs one child policy. So immediately they had the local evangelicals on their side to agitate.

The graph is really jarring and it kind of vindicates Ted Kennedy, the 1965 law didn't drastically change the ethnic makeup of USA. Something happened starting in the 90s and was accelerated under Bush/Obama.

The immigration Act of 1990 was far more detrimental to American Demographics, it created the Greencard Lottery, increased legal immigration by 50% and created the H1B visa program to name just 3 aspects of the bill which need to be reversed. This Bill was signed just 4 years after Amnesty was granted to 3 million Mexicans. The two measures effectively altered America for good.

You're right, but the antisems don't care because the 86 and 90 acts did not have a Jewish co-sponsor, and the 90 act was signed by anti-Israel GHWB.

to name just 3 aspects of the bill which need to be reversed

In terms of average immigrant quality, the 1990 act also created TPS status, which provides preferential treatment to the most dysfunctional people in the world. The current countries whose residents benefit from the "no deportation, work permits for everyone, no numerical limits" TPS status:

The immigration Act of 1990 was far more detrimental to American Demographics,

Incorrect. The Immigration Act of 1965 was the most disastrous hands down. For it was that act which changed forever the notion that America was a European nation. From the Naturalization Act of 1790, which limited naturalization to free whites, until 1965, America was seen as a white nation.

Of course there were exceptions, such as making former black slaves citizens after the Civil War. But there was never any notion that America was not a white, European nation. The 1965 Act changed that. It is probably similar to when the White Australia policy was abandoned. It marked the point at which America was put onto a path to become majority non-European.

Without the 1965 Act, the follow-on acts like 1990 would never have been contemplated. After all 1990 was a diversity act, and the notion of such diversity would never have been considered prior to the 1965 Act.

No, the 1965 Act, which destroyed the notion that America was a white country, was far more disastrous. Once America was no longer considered a white, European nation, the game was up. There was no defense against the follow-on acts which just finished what 1965 had started.

"The immigration Act of 1990 was far more detrimental to American Demographics, it created the Greencard Lottery, increased legal immigration by 50% and created the H1B visa program to name just 3 aspects of the bill which need to be reversed. This Bill was signed just 4 years after Amnesty was granted to 3 million Mexicans. The two measures effectively altered America for good."

Yeah despite the 1965 immigration act, America still remained an extremely White country for many many years after 1965. If you look at television commercials, films, and shows from the 1970s the vast majority of them were not Vibrantly Diverse. All White films, commercials and television shows in the 1970s were still the norm. Today in the 2010s they are the exception. And even being the exception they still catch hell, fire, and brimstone from the PC police.

The immigration Act of 1990 was far more detrimental to American Demographics, it created the Greencard Lottery, increased legal immigration by 50% and created the H1B visa program to name just 3 aspects of the bill which need to be reversed. This Bill was signed just 4 years after Amnesty was granted to 3 million Mexicans. The two measures effectively altered America for good.

Oh please. What silliness. Just stop.

The 1990 Act was essentially just an increase from 500,000 to 700,000, with some modest tightening of the extended family chain migration and some additional PC stupidity--homosexuals, AIDs patients, diversity lottery, TPS countries. (H1-B is in the 1965 Act. The foreign students i went to grad school with in the late 70s\early 80s, were all aware of the H1 program. Getting off F1 and onto J1 or H1 was standard path for staying in the US.)

Comparing it to the major revision that was the 1965 act--dramatically altering both the source and numbers--is just stupid.

Numbers matter, but going to hell 5/7ths as fast is ... still going to hell!

And honestly, folks who go "wow, America in 1970 after the 1965 Act was still a really white nation, but by 2000 after the 1990 Act it's all gone to hell" .... i don't know what to say. If you're that innumerate why are you reading Steve's blog?

The big increase in the foreign born population is due to quite a large extent to illegal immigration.

With the illegal aliens dropping anchor babies as soon as possible to immunize them against deportation. I remember visiting Savannah Georgia 25 years ago and looking at the local paper, a Chinese couple had jumped ship. Wife was pregnant so where do you think the baby was going to be born? Even back then I was angry at the USA being suckered

Forgot to mention that this Chinese couple was in the birth tourism vanguard because they immediately filed for asylum based on the ChiComs one child policy. So immediately they had the local evangelicals on their side to agitate.

Someone here posted a video of cars held up in a highway tunnel on account of a crash. People started getting out of their cars and talking to each other to figure out what was going on. As soon as the figured out they were held up by crashed cars up ahead, some of them got in their cars and others were directing traffic to get all the cars parked on the sides to open up a center lane. And after that, you saw these two cute mini tow trucks race through that opened lane to start sorting out the crashed cars.

It's not difficult to empathise and cooperate if half the country shares about three surnames, the replacement generation is basically cloned from the preexisting adults,and they all speak the same language. There's a lesson in there somewhere.

"That level of social co-operation" was exactly what the United States enjoyed, with only a few notable exceptions, until the late 1960s. Even the nation's negroes were relatively co-operative; something which defies credulity at this point.

The people who own and rule most of the country now hate that America, and greatly prefer the one we have today. One in which the various tribes are forever at one another's throats (save, of course, the one untouchable tribe), and kept appropriately servile by a neat combination of economic and social oppression, coupled with 24/7 mass-media propaganda.

I find it interesting that people will bemoan how "divided" the U.S. is and how we "can't get anything done" politically, but these same people will wail and moan when you point out that the foreign born population is just short of historic highs (1 in 6) and the highest in absolute terms. If you count unassimilated children of foreign born (who may or may not be fluent in English) and the relative higher child per woman rate of foreign-born, you begin to see that a large cause of the division is that Americans no longer share a common history, traditions, mores, etc. and hew to the traditions of their nations of origin. There are entire swaths of the United States where U.S. born children don't speak English - not just in the Southwest and California.

In fact, now the media tells us that mentioning that immigration is a cause of divisiveness is itself incandescently divisive.

If you count unassimilated children of foreign born (who may or may not be fluent in English)

I’m sure the vast majority of these children are fluent in English, even if English isn’t spoken at home. But they may not be very literate in any language.

The immigration Act of 1990 was far more detrimental to American Demographics, it created the Greencard Lottery, increased legal immigration by 50% and created the H1B visa program to name just 3 aspects of the bill which need to be reversed. This Bill was signed just 4 years after Amnesty was granted to 3 million Mexicans. The two measures effectively altered America for good.

Why, it’s almost as if both Bushes were hell-bent on destroying America!

Part of the South were majority black or close to it from the time of the Revolution onward. Only the great waves of wretched refuse type immigrants kept America from becoming almost as vibrant as the Caribbean.

The argument that mass immigration has suppressed the black share of the US population has been advanced by respectable people, including yourself, but it’s not really true.

It is true that the black share of US population was at its highest at the time of the War of Independence. And that it then decreased continuously until the 20th century and the founding of the welfare state. But most of that time the white population increased from natural growth, not immigration. It is not widely remembered now, but early population growth rates in the US were above 3%, rates nowadays usually seen only in sub-Saharan Africa.

Prior to the founding of the welfare state, most of the population growth came from the prosperous middle class. The highly fecund underclass is an artifact of the modern welfare state. (It is also catastrophically dysgenic, but I digress.)

So from Independence until the Welfare era, the black portion of the US was declining, with or without immigration. There are nuances, to be sure: iSteve-ish affordable family formation may have been adversely affected by immigration waves, for example. But to say, “only the great waves of wretched refuse type immigrants kept America from becoming almost as vibrant as the Caribbean” is plainly false.

This response is in the spirit of admiring improvement of the work of one of my preferred commenters.

So you are saying that the rate of increase of the native born whites was faster than that of blacks? I don't know the stats but it strikes me that the American slaves were well fed (maybe a healthier diet than the masters - lots of healthy collard greens, sweet potatoes, etc. and just a little meat - exactly what is now touted as a healthy diet),and that it was in the master's interest that the slaves be fruitful and multiply. Most of the 40 million American blacks are descended from less than 1/2 million slaves landed from Africa over 2 centuries so there must have been pretty hefty increase. I'm not saying that it was fun to be a slave but their lifestyle was probably a lot healthier than the way many people live today - healthy diet, lots of sunshine and exercise, no obesity, etc.

In contrast, the Spanish and Portuguese treated their slaves much worse and they died from tropical diseases . Brazil alone received almost 5 million Africans.

“Gulash-Bozo” sounds like a name you would create if you were parodying a Soviet commissar.

Yeah, it belongs next to "Premier Kissov" and "Ambassador de Sadeski".

There ought to be a nice derisive shorthand word or phrase to capture this view .”White genocide” doesn’t work– both because no one knows who is doing what to whom, and also because “genocide” means killing to most people, not some cultural concept. How about “inundationist”? Best I can come up with this morning.

How about "Silent Holocaust"? What with the term already working to the satisfaction of Jews, and all.

In the Trump Story Project, we’re presenting a series of short stories from contemporary writers, compiled by Ben H. Winters, imagining America’s future under President Donald Trump. This series was made possible by support from Slate Plus members. Read Ben Winters’ introduction to the series.

The immigration Act of 1990 was far more detrimental to American Demographics, it created the Greencard Lottery, increased legal immigration by 50% and created the H1B visa program to name just 3 aspects of the bill which need to be reversed. This Bill was signed just 4 years after Amnesty was granted to 3 million Mexicans. The two measures effectively altered America for good.

You’re right, but the antisems don’t care because the 86 and 90 acts did not have a Jewish co-sponsor, and the 90 act was signed by anti-Israel GHWB.

to name just 3 aspects of the bill which need to be reversed

In terms of average immigrant quality, the 1990 act also created TPS status, which provides preferential treatment to the most dysfunctional people in the world. The current countries whose residents benefit from the “no deportation, work permits for everyone, no numerical limits” TPS status:

AFIK blacks have been 13% of the US population for some time. But now I gather Hispanics are about 17%.

So, roughly speaking, if Hispanics had not arrived blacks would be about 13/70 ~ 15% of the population.

Doesn't seem like whites have done a very good job of suppressing black births. Or perhaps it's that blacks have managed to suppress white births.

Prosperity and urban living suppressesall births. If I recall correctly, immigrants from Latin America tend to have high fertility in the first generation, then assimilate to the American rate. And this fits the pattern observable all over the world–given first world living standards, family sizes drop to replacement level or lower. A few religious groups (Mormons and Orthodox Jews) manage to keep higher fertility, but most people in first world conditions don’t have enough kids to keep the population stable.

A half-starved Highland woman frequently bears more than twenty children, while a pampered fine lady is often incapable of bearing any, and is generally exhausted by two or three. Barrenness, so frequent among women of fashion, is very rare among those of inferior station. Luxury in the fair sex, while it inflames perhaps the passion for enjoyment, seems always to weaken, and frequently to destroy altogether, the powers of generation.

Prosperity and urban living suppressesall births. If I recall correctly, immigrants from Latin America tend to have high fertility in the first generation, then assimilate to the American rate. And this fits the pattern observable all over the world--given first world living standards, family sizes drop to replacement level or lower. A few religious groups (Mormons and Orthodox Jews) manage to keep higher fertility, but most people in first world conditions don't have enough kids to keep the population stable.

Prosperity and urban living suppressesall births.

Adam Smith noticed something similar in 1775:

A half-starved Highland woman frequently bears more than twenty children, while a pampered fine lady is often incapable of bearing any, and is generally exhausted by two or three. Barrenness, so frequent among women of fashion, is very rare among those of inferior station. Luxury in the fair sex, while it inflames perhaps the passion for enjoyment, seems always to weaken, and frequently to destroy altogether, the powers of generation.

You’re right, but the antisems don’t care because the 86 and 90 acts did not have a Jewish co-sponsor, and the 90 act was signed by anti-Israel GHWB.

You guys may be right, but sem partisans (e.g., you) don’t care, because the 86 and 90 acts did not have a Jewish co-sponsor (and calling Bush I “anti-Israel” sounds pretty sem partisan and Zionist, btw).

Which Southern states were close to majority black. Arkansas generally has one of the highest percentages of black population in the South and it wasn't even close to majority black during the pre-1924 immigration wave.

The immigration Act of 1990 was far more detrimental to American Demographics, it created the Greencard Lottery, increased legal immigration by 50% and created the H1B visa program to name just 3 aspects of the bill which need to be reversed. This Bill was signed just 4 years after Amnesty was granted to 3 million Mexicans. The two measures effectively altered America for good.

The immigration Act of 1990 was far more detrimental to American Demographics,

Incorrect. The Immigration Act of 1965 was the most disastrous hands down. For it was that act which changed forever the notion that America was a European nation. From the Naturalization Act of 1790, which limited naturalization to free whites, until 1965, America was seen as a white nation.

Of course there were exceptions, such as making former black slaves citizens after the Civil War. But there was never any notion that America was not a white, European nation. The 1965 Act changed that. It is probably similar to when the White Australia policy was abandoned. It marked the point at which America was put onto a path to become majority non-European.

Without the 1965 Act, the follow-on acts like 1990 would never have been contemplated. After all 1990 was a diversity act, and the notion of such diversity would never have been considered prior to the 1965 Act.

No, the 1965 Act, which destroyed the notion that America was a white country, was far more disastrous. Once America was no longer considered a white, European nation, the game was up. There was no defense against the follow-on acts which just finished what 1965 had started.

Merced is about 1/4 Asian and 1/2 Hispanic. There are around 800 whites out of 5,800 undergrads and 5,000 non-whites (and fewer whites and more Hispanics every year) so the blonde Dr. Goulash knows which side her bread is buttered on and it's not that of the "overt racists".

You can see how, if you live and work in that kind of environment, you can come to believe that vibrant minorities have already won the battle and Trumpism is just a rear guard action.

Merced campus itself was founded in 2005 and its student population is as you say.

There were a lot of Ed Biz outposts formed at that time with the sole goal of becoming money lenders on the one hand and harvesting federal diversibucks with the other. A lot of previously founded schools built the same revenue streams into their balance sheets.

Golash (isn’t that a Chechen surname?) herself got in on the ground floor of the Immigration Grievance industry (2000/pre-9/11), which is a mask for the Immigrant Farming industry. She is likely Hillariously furious about the New Glass Ceiling for which the Deplorables voted.

She seems to have a work ethic, soldiering away on behalf of open borders to anyone who will give her an outlet. She appears strategically smart enough to understand the advertising/promotional aspect of the Ed Biz, where “academic” success correlates with picking a message and staying on it tenaciously till you find your customer base:

Anyone unfamiliar with the Ed Biz might find her blog useful for getting a peek inside that industry.

For instance this piece above reveals the layers of careerist flab that thickly batten the “peer review” publishing process. It’s not what you have to say that matters or whether it’s accurate or sensible. It’s whether you can eventually score enough publishing points. The videogame/crowdvoted-Internet model of professional achievement. (I’ve long felt that the Ed Biz is GamerWorld for females.)

I’ve seen this syndrome often in the Ed Biz among bright but not too bright people who, by nature, are reasonably hard working. They end up doing silly things for a living, like generating utopian fantasies about remaking the world in their own Unicorn Princess image. This may in fact be all they can do.

However I keep returning to the fact that, in the decades where bad deals and bad economic policies ruled, these Ed Biz organizations/institutions became major employers. Including of native-born women and some men seeking to replace income lost first in deindustrialization, then in demographic warfare.

This is one of the more complicated Immigrant Farming schemes…aptly located there in the massively irrigated San Joaquin Valley.

Behind President Trump’s efforts to step up deportations and block travel from seven mostly Muslim countries lies a goal that reaches far beyond any immediate terrorism threat: a desire to reshape American demographics for the long term and keep out people who Trump and senior aides believe will not assimilate.

Looking back on the events of the past twenty-four years it really does seem as if there's been a deliberate engineering of demographics in this country. Things like importing Somalis into Minnesota appear to have been according to some sort of plan. The last three presidents in retrospect increasingly look like crap, don't they? I'm glad some people are waking up to this.

"How dare Trump interfere with the liberal project of making the working and middle class white extinct. Doesn’t he realize America will only reach its true potential when we have a liberal white elite ruling masses of vibrant people of color?"

Vibrant Diversity ruled by White guys with Italian last names which is the current situation in New York City and Los Angeles with Garcetti & De Blasio.

As a proud Italian-American, I’d be happy with that if they were actual Italian-AMERICAN MEN who loved this nation and its people and traditional culture. But obviously they’re not.

In any event, Garcetti is hardly much of an Italian, despite the last name. Snowflake Eric is a part-Jewish Mexican with a part-Italian father.

Merced is about 1/4 Asian and 1/2 Hispanic. There are around 800 whites out of 5,800 undergrads and 5,000 non-whites (and fewer whites and more Hispanics every year) so the blonde Dr. Goulash knows which side her bread is buttered on and it's not that of the "overt racists".

You can see how, if you live and work in that kind of environment, you can come to believe that vibrant minorities have already won the battle and Trumpism is just a rear guard action.

Urban Europe, even in "no go zones" like Marseille or Birmingham, is still much safer than urban America. The biggest long-term threat to Europe is sub Saharan African immigration, not Muslims. The US crossed that threshold centuries ago.

The idea that America is a "white nation" is kind of a joke, it hasn't been a white nation since the 17th century. Even today Germany or France are still far whiter places than the US. You have to live outside the US to see how much US culture and history has been shaped by having a large poorly assimilated African population making up more than 10% of the population for over three centuries now.

Europeans need to be concerned about Islamic immigration. For the US Islamic immigration is at best a distraction from the real demographic issues the country faces.

Here is a choice quote from a Twitter programmer (they like to use the term “software engineer these days, but he’s an engineer in the same way that a janitor is a sanitation engineer):

“I didn’t become a software engineer to be trying to make ends meet,” said a Twitter employee in his early 40s who earns a base salary of $160,000. It is, he added, a “pretty bad” income for raising a family in the Bay Area.”

I conducted a Sailer-Derbyshire Analysis (i.e., ctrl-F, “imm”).

And lo and behold, “immigrant” DOES show up in the article:

Glaring inequality

Fred Sherburn Zimmer from San Francisco’s Housing Rights Committee agreed that housing is too expensive in the Bay Area, but points out that there are much graver consequences for people not working in tech.

“For a senior whose healthcare is down the street, moving might be a death sentence,” she said. “For an immigrant family with two kids, moving out of a sanctuary city like San Francisco means you could get deported.” She described a building in San Francisco where there are 28 people living in “studio-like closets” in a basement, including a senior and families with children.

Rouhgly 1/3 of the population of San Francisco was born outside the US. Does anyone ask, if we had fewer immigrants, and in particular, fewer “sanctuary” seekers, what would housing affordability look like?

I live in San Francisco, and talking to my neighbours boggles the mind – whenever we hear about the housing crunch, what inevitably comes up is young tech workers who are destroying the city, with the implicit belief that these guys (and of course, they are all guys) are 23 year old Beta Theta Pi graduates from the University of Illinois.

No one seems to be capable of connecting the economic dynamics of a city of 50 square miles, with ridiculous permitting processes, and a boom in high tech jobs that draws heavily from immigrant populations.

[Programmers] like to use the term "sofftware engineer" these days, but he’s an engineer in the same way that a janitor is a sanitation engineer....

Hear, hear; amen! You've made me tealise I must stop using this hackneyed term.

The remainder of your remarks are spot on, as well, and the cycle is vicious: uppity Americans are discarded by the bastards in charge, replaced with more teeming hordes from Asia happy to live like ants because no matter how horrible the conditions, they are heavenly compared to those in India, China, etc. Their acceptance of the hive drives out still more Americans, bringing in more who embrace the hive, and so on.... The big-shots chuckle and count their money on estates in Woodside, Portola Valley, Los Altos, etc. because any whiff of questioning is banished by the incantations "diversity" and "racism."

The graph is really jarring and it kind of vindicates Ted Kennedy, the 1965 law didn't drastically change the ethnic makeup of USA. Something happened starting in the 90s and was accelerated under Bush/Obama.

the 1965 law didn’t drastically change the ethnic makeup of USA

imagine the graph without the 1965 act – it would have carried on going down

the halt on immigration in 1924 is why the graph was going down – a foreign born immigrant who was ten in 1924 would be 51 in 1965 – as people who’d immigrated before 1924 died off the graph would have carried on going down

so you really have two graphs overlaying each other – the 1924 one where the numbers were decreasing overlaid by the 1965 one where the numbers started increasing again

initially the two trends cancelled each other out – new arrivals cancelled out by the last of the pre 1924 group dying – when the last of the 1924 group were gone the graph shoots up

(as well as all the other stuff that happened later like amnesties etc)

Your points are well taken and are a call for someone with animation skills to illustrate these trends using moving lines.

As much as I am convinced there are population genetic interests behind a lot of immigration ideology/policy, there is also a thick veneer of people not understanding the movement of numbers across time.

Ask your average immibot about the exponential function of a fixed rate of increase/decrease, and they'll stare blankly and insist a 5 or 10 percent increase isn't much (rather than a doubling every 14 or 7 years).

The immigration Act of 1990 was far more detrimental to American Demographics, it created the Greencard Lottery, increased legal immigration by 50% and created the H1B visa program to name just 3 aspects of the bill which need to be reversed. This Bill was signed just 4 years after Amnesty was granted to 3 million Mexicans. The two measures effectively altered America for good.

“The immigration Act of 1990 was far more detrimental to American Demographics, it created the Greencard Lottery, increased legal immigration by 50% and created the H1B visa program to name just 3 aspects of the bill which need to be reversed. This Bill was signed just 4 years after Amnesty was granted to 3 million Mexicans. The two measures effectively altered America for good.”

Yeah despite the 1965 immigration act, America still remained an extremely White country for many many years after 1965. If you look at television commercials, films, and shows from the 1970s the vast majority of them were not Vibrantly Diverse. All White films, commercials and television shows in the 1970s were still the norm. Today in the 2010s they are the exception. And even being the exception they still catch hell, fire, and brimstone from the PC police.

For Trump and his acolytes, American identity is basically how Samuel Huntington defined it. A variant of WASP and some european features. The rest is considered as "externalities" or evolutionary accidents.

For Trump and his acolytes, American identity is basically how Samuel Huntington defined it. A variant of WASP and some european features. The rest is considered as "externalities" or evolutionary accidents.

Someone here posted a video of cars held up in a highway tunnel on account of a crash. People started getting out of their cars and talking to each other to figure out what was going on. As soon as the figured out they were held up by crashed cars up ahead, some of them got in their cars and others were directing traffic to get all the cars parked on the sides to open up a center lane. And after that, you saw these two cute mini tow trucks race through that opened lane to start sorting out the crashed cars.

We need that level of social cooperation.

It’s not difficult to empathise and cooperate if half the country shares about three surnames, the replacement generation is basically cloned from the preexisting adults,and they all speak the same language. There’s a lesson in there somewhere.

Public university lays off 79 IT workers after they train H-1B replacements
Union says it's the first time a public university has embraced IT outsourcing.

Meanwhile, we have a friend who was laid off from his IT job near Los Angeles and has not yet landed a new job after several months. He’s a native-born white American U.S. Citizen, though, so why give a damn about HIM.

Amazing, though, that his white privilege didn’t stop him and his wife and kids from having to vacate their apartment early and move in with friends.

Somewhat related, Drudge notes that A. Obama's advisor Valerie Jarrett ... HAS MOVED INTO HIS HOUSE in DC, and is coordinating the attack on Trump, with the aim of removing him by impeachment or forcing him to resign; and B. Sessions is on the way out with Democratic Senators and "Sing along with Mitch" McConnell aiming to remove him over allegations that he played footsie and got cooties with Russia, or something.

What ex President EVER stuck around DC and had his chief advisor ... MOVE INTO HIS HOUSE?

Is that weird, or what? Like I said, Obama has designs to remove Trump and saunter back into the White House as the latter day American version of his cousin Raila Odinga. And just as you can draw a genetic line from the political behavior of George Herbert Walker Bush, W Bush, and El Jebe!, you can do the same for cousin Odinga and Obama. Whose grandfather was a Mau Mau and father wanted according to his own autobiography to kick out all non Africans from Kenya.

Which as Steve noted, Obama approved of in that restaurant scene in Nairobi with his half-sister, after poor service from the Indian owners mistaking them for native (poor tipper) Kenyans in favor of (big tipper) White tourists.

All this stuff is being coordinated. Of course, among the elites and their "revolt" against the masses, or as Derbyshire would say the GoodWhite-BadWhite war, there already exists a considerable appetite for shattering the "safe, boring" White male world that produces wealth and security but not enough "sexy danger" that the Eat-Pray-Love crowd seeks out.

[That picture ... are we sure that's not really a man?]

Maybe Barry and Val go out bar-hopping and hitting on chicks together. Or is it hitting on guys together?

The immigration Act of 1990 was far more detrimental to American Demographics, it created the Greencard Lottery, increased legal immigration by 50% and created the H1B visa program to name just 3 aspects of the bill which need to be reversed. This Bill was signed just 4 years after Amnesty was granted to 3 million Mexicans. The two measures effectively altered America for good.

Which Southern states were close to majority black. Arkansas generally has one of the highest percentages of black population in the South and it wasn't even close to majority black during the pre-1924 immigration wave.

Someone here posted a video of cars held up in a highway tunnel on account of a crash. People started getting out of their cars and talking to each other to figure out what was going on. As soon as the figured out they were held up by crashed cars up ahead, some of them got in their cars and others were directing traffic to get all the cars parked on the sides to open up a center lane. And after that, you saw these two cute mini tow trucks race through that opened lane to start sorting out the crashed cars.

We need that level of social cooperation.

“That level of social co-operation” was exactly what the United States enjoyed, with only a few notable exceptions, until the late 1960s. Even the nation’s negroes were relatively co-operative; something which defies credulity at this point.

The people who own and rule most of the country now hate that America, and greatly prefer the one we have today. One in which the various tribes are forever at one another’s throats (save, of course, the one untouchable tribe), and kept appropriately servile by a neat combination of economic and social oppression, coupled with 24/7 mass-media propaganda.

The argument that mass immigration has suppressed the black share of the US population has been advanced by respectable people, including yourself, but it's not really true.

It is true that the black share of US population was at its highest at the time of the War of Independence. And that it then decreased continuously until the 20th century and the founding of the welfare state. But most of that time the white population increased from natural growth, not immigration. It is not widely remembered now, but early population growth rates in the US were above 3%, rates nowadays usually seen only in sub-Saharan Africa.

Prior to the founding of the welfare state, most of the population growth came from the prosperous middle class. The highly fecund underclass is an artifact of the modern welfare state. (It is also catastrophically dysgenic, but I digress.)

So from Independence until the Welfare era, the black portion of the US was declining, with or without immigration. There are nuances, to be sure: iSteve-ish affordable family formation may have been adversely affected by immigration waves, for example. But to say, "only the great waves of wretched refuse type immigrants kept America from becoming almost as vibrant as the Caribbean" is plainly false.

This response is in the spirit of admiring improvement of the work of one of my preferred commenters.

This response is in the spirit of admiring improvement of the work of one of my preferred commenters.

Agree. Jack D almost always brings his A game, but that observation of his felt like a drive-by.

I heard the Muslim population in France is undercounted and the true figure is in the 12-to-13 percent range.

Just like the USA has had a static population of eleven million illegals for over a decade…. I suspect in France nationally the numbers are well above 10%, and over 20% in major cities. They wouldn’t have the nerve to light up the car-b-cue without significant strength in numbers. I’ve observed 15% to be the tipping point in Western nations/cities where natives start to notice and get irritated about their displacement.

Here is a choice quote from a Twitter programmer (they like to use the term "software engineer these days, but he's an engineer in the same way that a janitor is a sanitation engineer):

"I didn’t become a software engineer to be trying to make ends meet,” said a Twitter employee in his early 40s who earns a base salary of $160,000. It is, he added, a “pretty bad” income for raising a family in the Bay Area."

I conducted a Sailer-Derbyshire Analysis (i.e., ctrl-F, "imm").

And lo and behold, "immigrant" DOES show up in the article:

Glaring inequality

Fred Sherburn Zimmer from San Francisco’s Housing Rights Committee agreed that housing is too expensive in the Bay Area, but points out that there are much graver consequences for people not working in tech.

“For a senior whose healthcare is down the street, moving might be a death sentence,” she said. “For an immigrant family with two kids, moving out of a sanctuary city like San Francisco means you could get deported.” She described a building in San Francisco where there are 28 people living in “studio-like closets” in a basement, including a senior and families with children.

Rouhgly 1/3 of the population of San Francisco was born outside the US. Does anyone ask, if we had fewer immigrants, and in particular, fewer "sanctuary" seekers, what would housing affordability look like?

I live in San Francisco, and talking to my neighbours boggles the mind - whenever we hear about the housing crunch, what inevitably comes up is young tech workers who are destroying the city, with the implicit belief that these guys (and of course, they are all guys) are 23 year old Beta Theta Pi graduates from the University of Illinois.

No one seems to be capable of connecting the economic dynamics of a city of 50 square miles, with ridiculous permitting processes, and a boom in high tech jobs that draws heavily from immigrant populations.

But but but but but what about the Crusades? Even though that was 300 trillion years ago. The Left can not come up with any modern day 21st Century examples of Christians behaving like Muslims.

The Crusades were defensive wars organised to stop a wave of rape, murder, and subjugation sweeping inexorably toward Europe herself, having already annihilated Christendom in all of western Asia. To deny this self-evident fact is to identify oneself as irrational, evil, or both. It’s actually a very helpful topic for quickly assessing what kind of person one is dealing with.

But but but but but what about the Crusades? Even though that was 300 trillion years ago. The Left can not come up with any modern day 21st Century examples of Christians behaving like Muslims.

If there were a modern-day nation full of Puritans – Christians like the ones who founded some of the first European colonies in what would eventually become America – I’d be demanding that we keep them out at all costs.

Or, for that matter, any Christians at all from about more than five hundred years or so ago. Their beliefs simply aren’t compatible with our society at all, in any way.

There’s a modern equivalent to Christianity of five hundred years or more ago, of course, and it’s called ‘Islam’. Who knows what it might be like, five hundred years from now? I have no idea, and it doesn’t matter, because we’re dealing with here and now.

Yeah but the Irish and Italians were once considered non-white in America as well so your concerns are not valid. Brown people will assimilate EXACTLY the same as the "white ethnics" did almost 100 years ago, goy!

Yeah but the Irish and Italians were once considered non-white in America as well so your concerns are not valid.

Demonstrably untrue. Jews, Italians, Irish and other Euros were all allowed to become naturalized citizens during the periods when the First Naturalization Act of 1790, and its successor acts, where in force. These acts limited naturalization to free whites of good moral character. If they hadn’t been considered white, they would never have been allowed to naturalize.

Yeah but the Irish and Italians were once considered non-white in America as well so your concerns are not valid.

Demonstrably untrue. Jews, Italians, Irish and other Euros were all allowed to become naturalized citizens during the periods when the First Naturalization Act of 1790, and its successor acts, where in force. These acts limited naturalization to free whites of good moral character. If they hadn't been considered white, they would never have been allowed to naturalize.

Who can forget the scene in Gone With the Wind in which Scarlett O’Hara’s Irish surname is revealed and she is immediately sold into slavery?

My grandpappy taught me many of the old Negroe spirtuals the family would sing in the fields before the horrors of Jim Crow were ended and we were finally allowed to sit at the lunch counter beside our betters of English extraction. Begorrah! 'Twas a time for celebration.

Look, its true Celts were more commonly indentured servants (often tantamount ro being enslaved) and otherwise maltreated in colonial times (naturally enough – look to how we were treated by the English in Britain!), but the tired nonsense about how Irish, Scots, etc. were treated like black people is, as Steve wryly observes, worthy of ridicule. I've no firsthand experience with the history of Italians et al., not being of such extraction myself, but the fact that the overwhelming majority of them showed up well after 1865 denies them much credulity for the claim they suffered just as enslaved Negroes did.

Here is a choice quote from a Twitter programmer (they like to use the term "software engineer these days, but he's an engineer in the same way that a janitor is a sanitation engineer):

"I didn’t become a software engineer to be trying to make ends meet,” said a Twitter employee in his early 40s who earns a base salary of $160,000. It is, he added, a “pretty bad” income for raising a family in the Bay Area."

I conducted a Sailer-Derbyshire Analysis (i.e., ctrl-F, "imm").

And lo and behold, "immigrant" DOES show up in the article:

Glaring inequality

Fred Sherburn Zimmer from San Francisco’s Housing Rights Committee agreed that housing is too expensive in the Bay Area, but points out that there are much graver consequences for people not working in tech.

“For a senior whose healthcare is down the street, moving might be a death sentence,” she said. “For an immigrant family with two kids, moving out of a sanctuary city like San Francisco means you could get deported.” She described a building in San Francisco where there are 28 people living in “studio-like closets” in a basement, including a senior and families with children.

Rouhgly 1/3 of the population of San Francisco was born outside the US. Does anyone ask, if we had fewer immigrants, and in particular, fewer "sanctuary" seekers, what would housing affordability look like?

I live in San Francisco, and talking to my neighbours boggles the mind - whenever we hear about the housing crunch, what inevitably comes up is young tech workers who are destroying the city, with the implicit belief that these guys (and of course, they are all guys) are 23 year old Beta Theta Pi graduates from the University of Illinois.

No one seems to be capable of connecting the economic dynamics of a city of 50 square miles, with ridiculous permitting processes, and a boom in high tech jobs that draws heavily from immigrant populations.

It's all those damned frat bros from Indiana.

[Programmers] like to use the term “sofftware engineer” these days, but he’s an engineer in the same way that a janitor is a sanitation engineer….

Hear, hear; amen! You’ve made me tealise I must stop using this hackneyed term.

The remainder of your remarks are spot on, as well, and the cycle is vicious: uppity Americans are discarded by the bastards in charge, replaced with more teeming hordes from Asia happy to live like ants because no matter how horrible the conditions, they are heavenly compared to those in India, China, etc. Their acceptance of the hive drives out still more Americans, bringing in more who embrace the hive, and so on…. The big-shots chuckle and count their money on estates in Woodside, Portola Valley, Los Altos, etc. because any whiff of questioning is banished by the incantations “diversity” and “racism.”

the halt on immigration in 1924 is why the graph was going down – a foreign born immigrant who was ten in 1924 would be 51 in 1965 – as people who’d immigrated before 1924 died off the graph would have carried on going down

After WW2 we maintained the low immigration level laws. But refugee admissions rocketed. I looked for a number but could not find. We must have allowed in 500,000 to 1,000,000 refugees post WW2 mostly from Europe. They came in as displaced persons-refugees. Australia and Canada were doing the same. Refugees were non-Jews and Jews and even some Chinese and Asians I suppose. Post WW2 there were many population shuffles (Communities of Germans who had been living in Russia for a few centuries in particular) and transfers and Israel’s creation was just one of many.

We also had the largest baby boom in US history post WW2. So even though we took in more refugees, regular immigration was still at historic lows and the high birth rates at the time would have still kept the foreign-born population percentage low.

"The immigration Act of 1990 was far more detrimental to American Demographics, it created the Greencard Lottery, increased legal immigration by 50% and created the H1B visa program to name just 3 aspects of the bill which need to be reversed. This Bill was signed just 4 years after Amnesty was granted to 3 million Mexicans. The two measures effectively altered America for good."

Yeah despite the 1965 immigration act, America still remained an extremely White country for many many years after 1965. If you look at television commercials, films, and shows from the 1970s the vast majority of them were not Vibrantly Diverse. All White films, commercials and television shows in the 1970s were still the norm. Today in the 2010s they are the exception. And even being the exception they still catch hell, fire, and brimstone from the PC police.

Just take a look at movies from the 80s they weren’t terribly vibrant beyond blacks & the occasional Puerto Rican/Mexican.

I interned in Central New Jersy a few years ago. I noticed quite alot Indians & in the town I was staying at. So I googled it and was stunned at the demographics. It’s about half Indian/Chinese.

Yeah but the Irish and Italians were once considered non-white in America as well so your concerns are not valid. Brown people will assimilate EXACTLY the same as the "white ethnics" did almost 100 years ago, goy!

I want to thank you for a post even more idiotic than anything I have ever posted . The first Negros landed in this country in 1619 , almost 400 years ago . The only things that they have “assimilated” are straight razors and the EBT.

Which Southern states were close to majority black. Arkansas generally has one of the highest percentages of black population in the South and it wasn't even close to majority black during the pre-1924 immigration wave.

If the US-born children of Mexican/Central American immigrants were much, much better at expressing themselves in Spanish than in English, then I think it would make sense to say they're only "technically" fluent in English. But I suspect in almost all cases these kids' English is as serviceable as their Spanish, in which case you have to choose between saying a) they're not fluent in any language, or b) they're bilingual. You can be bilingual even if you're functionally illiterate in both languages.

"The immigration Act of 1990 was far more detrimental to American Demographics, it created the Greencard Lottery, increased legal immigration by 50% and created the H1B visa program to name just 3 aspects of the bill which need to be reversed. This Bill was signed just 4 years after Amnesty was granted to 3 million Mexicans. The two measures effectively altered America for good."

Yeah despite the 1965 immigration act, America still remained an extremely White country for many many years after 1965. If you look at television commercials, films, and shows from the 1970s the vast majority of them were not Vibrantly Diverse. All White films, commercials and television shows in the 1970s were still the norm. Today in the 2010s they are the exception. And even being the exception they still catch hell, fire, and brimstone from the PC police.

Please use the

Blockquote

and not quotation marks (” “). Your comments are more annoying to read with the quotes.

Looking back on the events of the past twenty-four years it really does seem as if there's been a deliberate engineering of demographics in this country. Things like importing Somalis into Minnesota appear to have been according to some sort of plan. The last three presidents in retrospect increasingly look like crap, don't they? I'm glad some people are waking up to this.

Those who came before Clinton did their fair share of damage.

Reagan’s amnesty didn’t help. Neither did his bankrolling of the Taliban. (True, they were the enemy of our enemy, but still.)

Bush I, old CIA man that he was, gave us The Mother of All Battles, which eventually led to The Mother of All Quagmires. He also set the stage for the oligarchs’ rape of Russia.

Going back even further, Carter was a disaster; Ford was an empty suit; Nixon was … Nixon; Johnson was the genius behind the Great Society and Vietnam; Kennedy was mediocre.

What's your point ? Pericles led Athens to disaster , Churchill made England a 2nd rate power Woodrow Wilson and FDR got us involved wars that were not our concern and placed our worst enemies in positions of power . Democracy is as shitty a system as the absolute rule of kings . Every system of government has proved as disastrous as or worse than all the ones that came before . While a man may transcend his nature mankind cannot . The biggest lie we have swallowed is that violence doesn't solve anything .

BTW Stan watching you on your youtube channel is like watching the Special Olympics . I don't mean to be harsh or anything , just a fact . I am sure you could find a HS kid in the neighborhood to fix that shit for you .

The argument that mass immigration has suppressed the black share of the US population has been advanced by respectable people, including yourself, but it's not really true.

It is true that the black share of US population was at its highest at the time of the War of Independence. And that it then decreased continuously until the 20th century and the founding of the welfare state. But most of that time the white population increased from natural growth, not immigration. It is not widely remembered now, but early population growth rates in the US were above 3%, rates nowadays usually seen only in sub-Saharan Africa.

Prior to the founding of the welfare state, most of the population growth came from the prosperous middle class. The highly fecund underclass is an artifact of the modern welfare state. (It is also catastrophically dysgenic, but I digress.)

So from Independence until the Welfare era, the black portion of the US was declining, with or without immigration. There are nuances, to be sure: iSteve-ish affordable family formation may have been adversely affected by immigration waves, for example. But to say, "only the great waves of wretched refuse type immigrants kept America from becoming almost as vibrant as the Caribbean" is plainly false.

This response is in the spirit of admiring improvement of the work of one of my preferred commenters.

So you are saying that the rate of increase of the native born whites was faster than that of blacks? I don’t know the stats but it strikes me that the American slaves were well fed (maybe a healthier diet than the masters – lots of healthy collard greens, sweet potatoes, etc. and just a little meat – exactly what is now touted as a healthy diet),and that it was in the master’s interest that the slaves be fruitful and multiply. Most of the 40 million American blacks are descended from less than 1/2 million slaves landed from Africa over 2 centuries so there must have been pretty hefty increase. I’m not saying that it was fun to be a slave but their lifestyle was probably a lot healthier than the way many people live today – healthy diet, lots of sunshine and exercise, no obesity, etc.

In contrast, the Spanish and Portuguese treated their slaves much worse and they died from tropical diseases . Brazil alone received almost 5 million Africans.

So you are saying that the rate of increase of the native born whites was faster than that of blacks?

JackD, probably impossible to reach a definitive conclusion. Both groups were fecund. Anecdotally from my own genealogical research, my paternal great-grandfather had 15 children; this was turn-of-the-century rural Illinois. My great-grandfather was 1 of 6 siblings while his his wife (my great-grandmother) was 1 of 7. My great-grandfather's father was 1 of 8; again, this is rural Indiana/Illinois, several generations past my Dad's ancestor's arriving in the early/mid 1700s (part of Hackett-Fischer's Scots-Irish migration). This pattern also repeats in my mother's rural mid-South (Carolinas, Tennessee, Kentucky) lineage.

The census data is inconclusive before 1850, but US total population in 1790 at the first census was approximately 3.9 million, 694,000 (17.8%) counted as slaves. By 1850, the population was 23.2 million, with 19.5 million listed as white and 3.6 million listed as black (18%), so, about the same ratio as 1790. So you can assume very similar levels of fecundity during that 60 year period. After that, the latter half of the 19th century saw the increasing influx of the next Great Wave of European immigrants which ended around 1920 and decreased the black ratio of the population as seen over the next 150 years.

Any conclusions about the period before 1790 requires more time to research than I am willing to commit to this blog comment.

"So you are saying that the rate of increase of the native born whites was faster than that of blacks?"

Yes, except it's not me saying it, it's the US Census Bureau. And, as already mentioned, it continued until the 1930's (i.e., the founding of the welfare state). Incidentally, after the "civil rights" era and consequent ramping up welfare in the 1960s and 1970s, the black reproductive advantage over whites (of every kind) skyrocketed. So the government (i.e., taxpayers) is literally paying to race-replace.

We seem in agreement that there should be no immigration into the USA from Africa? As to the tens of millions of Africans who are already here, what should we do with them while they are killing, raping, robbing, and assaulting at wildly disproportionate rates.

the halt on immigration in 1924 is why the graph was going down – a foreign born immigrant who was ten in 1924 would be 51 in 1965 – as people who’d immigrated before 1924 died off the graph would have carried on going down

After WW2 we maintained the low immigration level laws. But refugee admissions rocketed. I looked for a number but could not find. We must have allowed in 500,000 to 1,000,000 refugees post WW2 mostly from Europe. They came in as displaced persons-refugees. Australia and Canada were doing the same. Refugees were non-Jews and Jews and even some Chinese and Asians I suppose. Post WW2 there were many population shuffles (Communities of Germans who had been living in Russia for a few centuries in particular) and transfers and Israel's creation was just one of many.

We also had the largest baby boom in US history post WW2. So even though we took in more refugees, regular immigration was still at historic lows and the high birth rates at the time would have still kept the foreign-born population percentage low.

Who can forget the scene in Gone With the Wind in which Scarlett O'Hara's Irish surname is revealed and she is immediately sold into slavery?

My grandpappy taught me many of the old Negroe spirtuals the family would sing in the fields before the horrors of Jim Crow were ended and we were finally allowed to sit at the lunch counter beside our betters of English extraction. Begorrah! ‘Twas a time for celebration.

Look, its true Celts were more commonly indentured servants (often tantamount ro being enslaved) and otherwise maltreated in colonial times (naturally enough – look to how we were treated by the English in Britain!), but the tired nonsense about how Irish, Scots, etc. were treated like black people is, as Steve wryly observes, worthy of ridicule. I’ve no firsthand experience with the history of Italians et al., not being of such extraction myself, but the fact that the overwhelming majority of them showed up well after 1865 denies them much credulity for the claim they suffered just as enslaved Negroes did.

What happened between 1930 and 1970 on that chart? Where the foreign-born leaving or just dying off?

What happened between 1930 and 1970 on that chart?

America’s Golden Age.

Yeah, ok, my parents had to suffer through the depression and the War. But then nukes, computers, jet aircraft, going to the moon, low crime, cheap suburban housing, plentiful jobs, lots of marriages and kids, common American citizenship and culture.

It was hell! We damn sure don’t want to cut off immigration and have *that* happen again.

Somewhat related, Drudge notes that A. Obama's advisor Valerie Jarrett ... HAS MOVED INTO HIS HOUSE in DC, and is coordinating the attack on Trump, with the aim of removing him by impeachment or forcing him to resign; and B. Sessions is on the way out with Democratic Senators and "Sing along with Mitch" McConnell aiming to remove him over allegations that he played footsie and got cooties with Russia, or something.

What ex President EVER stuck around DC and had his chief advisor ... MOVE INTO HIS HOUSE?

Is that weird, or what? Like I said, Obama has designs to remove Trump and saunter back into the White House as the latter day American version of his cousin Raila Odinga. And just as you can draw a genetic line from the political behavior of George Herbert Walker Bush, W Bush, and El Jebe!, you can do the same for cousin Odinga and Obama. Whose grandfather was a Mau Mau and father wanted according to his own autobiography to kick out all non Africans from Kenya.

Which as Steve noted, Obama approved of in that restaurant scene in Nairobi with his half-sister, after poor service from the Indian owners mistaking them for native (poor tipper) Kenyans in favor of (big tipper) White tourists.

All this stuff is being coordinated. Of course, among the elites and their "revolt" against the masses, or as Derbyshire would say the GoodWhite-BadWhite war, there already exists a considerable appetite for shattering the "safe, boring" White male world that produces wealth and security but not enough "sexy danger" that the Eat-Pray-Love crowd seeks out.

[That picture ... are we sure that's not really a man?]

The Obamas’ residence in DC is indeed strange, and seems to be largely overlooked by the media, even those on the right.

I recall we had a discussion here when the Obamas announced last year that they would be staying. I think the conclusion was that no president since the semi-invalid Woodrow Wilson had done this, and that it was not a sign of good things to come.

It’s a worrisome precedent, and the Obamas seem already to be taking advantage of their presence in DC to stir up trouble.

Urban Europe, even in "no go zones" like Marseille or Birmingham, is still much safer than urban America. The biggest long-term threat to Europe is sub Saharan African immigration, not Muslims. The US crossed that threshold centuries ago.

The idea that America is a "white nation" is kind of a joke, it hasn't been a white nation since the 17th century. Even today Germany or France are still far whiter places than the US. You have to live outside the US to see how much US culture and history has been shaped by having a large poorly assimilated African population making up more than 10% of the population for over three centuries now.

Europeans need to be concerned about Islamic immigration. For the US Islamic immigration is at best a distraction from the real demographic issues the country faces.

The idea that America is a “white nation” is kind of a joke, it hasn’t been a white nation since the 17th century.

Nonsense. History has its impact and there’s no denying demographics–having Africans around–has its effect. But the US was 90% white when i was a pup. But more than demographics, it was *culturally*, morally, legally very very white–without apology. A western European had no trouble decamping to the US and feeling comfortable.

The deconstruction of whiteness in the US is happened during my lifetime. Slowly at first, mainstreaming black culture and behavior, but then ramping up as minoritarianism was pushed as a general ideology. But the US would still feel very white if it wasn’t for the 1965 immigration act, and firing up mass immigration, allowing illegal entry and the ’86 amnesty.

~~~
I’ll also note, that Europe is much *worse* shape than people think. Folks see the changes–i was in Paris a couple years back and thought “what a disaster” and i was in the center city, not Saint-Denis. But they underestimate demographic “momentum”–basically who is having the kids. Steve’s article on estimating French minorities from sickle-cell testing gets at the issue.

Lots of folks have some sort of aversion to thinking clearly about biology and doing basic math. But childless old Frau Merkel’s fit of waving in young muslim men created a minority the relative size of the US black population in 1960, *in one year*. There may be 80 million Germans, but there aren’t 80 Germans of breeding age. There are about 10 million German males in the current breeding generation–and fewer coming in the next one. Those men Merkel imported–if not sent back–will either replace a large number of German men in breeding German women, or will eventually be allowed to bring in their own women from the old country. So effectively Merkel created a 10% minority group–a nasty, contentions, non- assimilating one–roughly scale of the US’s black population, and created not via a long history of slavery, or through the remnants of conquered peoples, or a long history of imperial conquests … in one year, in a fit of globalist preening pique.

Western Europe’s in better shape than the US now, but its importing an even more troublesome and contentious minorities, who are growing in proportion very very fast.

Europe’s native population is going to have to revolt and expel the invaders *right now* or it’s doomed.

Nonsense. History has its impact and there’s no denying demographics–having Africans around–has its effect. But the US was 90% white when i was a pup. But more than demographics, it was *culturally*, morally, legally very very white–without apology.

Right, and it was recognized as such even by Jews like Mel Brooks and Buck Henry. After Max asks "The Craw" why he kidnapped so many blondes if he only wanted Princess Ingrid, the Craw responds, "Unfortunately, Mr. Smart, all Americans look alike to us."

Reagan's amnesty didn't help. Neither did his bankrolling of the Taliban. (True, they were the enemy of our enemy, but still.)

Bush I, old CIA man that he was, gave us The Mother of All Battles, which eventually led to The Mother of All Quagmires. He also set the stage for the oligarchs' rape of Russia.

Going back even further, Carter was a disaster; Ford was an empty suit; Nixon was ... Nixon; Johnson was the genius behind the Great Society and Vietnam; Kennedy was mediocre.

What’s your point ? Pericles led Athens to disaster , Churchill made England a 2nd rate power Woodrow Wilson and FDR got us involved wars that were not our concern and placed our worst enemies in positions of power . Democracy is as shitty a system as the absolute rule of kings . Every system of government has proved as disastrous as or worse than all the ones that came before . While a man may transcend his nature mankind cannot . The biggest lie we have swallowed is that violence doesn’t solve anything .

BTW Stan watching you on your youtube channel is like watching the Special Olympics . I don’t mean to be harsh or anything , just a fact . I am sure you could find a HS kid in the neighborhood to fix that shit for you .

imagine the graph without the 1965 act - it would have carried on going down

the halt on immigration in 1924 is why the graph was going down - a foreign born immigrant who was ten in 1924 would be 51 in 1965 - as people who'd immigrated before 1924 died off the graph would have carried on going down

so you really have two graphs overlaying each other - the 1924 one where the numbers were decreasing overlaid by the 1965 one where the numbers started increasing again

initially the two trends cancelled each other out - new arrivals cancelled out by the last of the pre 1924 group dying - when the last of the 1924 group were gone the graph shoots up

(as well as all the other stuff that happened later like amnesties etc)

Which Southern states were close to majority black. Arkansas generally has one of the highest percentages of black population in the South and it wasn't even close to majority black during the pre-1924 immigration wave.

What's your point ? Pericles led Athens to disaster , Churchill made England a 2nd rate power Woodrow Wilson and FDR got us involved wars that were not our concern and placed our worst enemies in positions of power . Democracy is as shitty a system as the absolute rule of kings . Every system of government has proved as disastrous as or worse than all the ones that came before . While a man may transcend his nature mankind cannot . The biggest lie we have swallowed is that violence doesn't solve anything .

BTW Stan watching you on your youtube channel is like watching the Special Olympics . I don't mean to be harsh or anything , just a fact . I am sure you could find a HS kid in the neighborhood to fix that shit for you .

What's your point ? Pericles led Athens to disaster , Churchill made England a 2nd rate power Woodrow Wilson and FDR got us involved wars that were not our concern and placed our worst enemies in positions of power . Democracy is as shitty a system as the absolute rule of kings . Every system of government has proved as disastrous as or worse than all the ones that came before . While a man may transcend his nature mankind cannot . The biggest lie we have swallowed is that violence doesn't solve anything .

BTW Stan watching you on your youtube channel is like watching the Special Olympics . I don't mean to be harsh or anything , just a fact . I am sure you could find a HS kid in the neighborhood to fix that shit for you .

watching you on your youtube channel is like watching the Special Olympics .

Well, truthfully, I should have known better than to post the striptease video. In my defense, I will point out that it was pretty blurry.

And the one with the cat was ... disturbing. I readily admit that I went too far.

But I don't think my singing is that bad. If nothing else, my enthusiasm for ABBA compensates for my other deficiencies.

My newest video, which should be uploaded sometime this weekend, features the improved version of my interpretive-dance routine. This time, I'm using a Finnish cover of Laura Branigan's "Self Control":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNoirgfZvt4

Fluent? Maybe technically, but usually with a severely limited vocabulary that makes it impossible to explain or discuss ideas or phenomena of much complexity.

If the US-born children of Mexican/Central American immigrants were much, much better at expressing themselves in Spanish than in English, then I think it would make sense to say they’re only “technically” fluent in English. But I suspect in almost all cases these kids’ English is as serviceable as their Spanish, in which case you have to choose between saying a) they’re not fluent in any language, or b) they’re bilingual. You can be bilingual even if you’re functionally illiterate in both languages.

I've had "ESL" students where their home language is listed as Spanish, yet I have spoken basic Spanish to them and they did not understand.

Their "Spanish" has a lot of slang & English words in it. Almost nothing like the Spanish that is taught to Americans learning it as a second language, which is based off the Colombian dialect because it is supposedly the clearest version of Spanish in the world.

Also, these are not indigenous children who speak native languages, either.

The idea that America is a “white nation” is kind of a joke, it hasn’t been a white nation since the 17th century.

Nonsense. History has its impact and there's no denying demographics--having Africans around--has its effect. But the US was 90% white when i was a pup. But more than demographics, it was *culturally*, morally, legally very very white--without apology. A western European had no trouble decamping to the US and feeling comfortable.

The deconstruction of whiteness in the US is happened during my lifetime. Slowly at first, mainstreaming black culture and behavior, but then ramping up as minoritarianism was pushed as a general ideology. But the US would still feel very white if it wasn't for the 1965 immigration act, and firing up mass immigration, allowing illegal entry and the '86 amnesty.

~~~
I'll also note, that Europe is much *worse* shape than people think. Folks see the changes--i was in Paris a couple years back and thought "what a disaster" and i was in the center city, not Saint-Denis. But they underestimate demographic "momentum"--basically who is having the kids. Steve's article on estimating French minorities from sickle-cell testing gets at the issue.

Lots of folks have some sort of aversion to thinking clearly about biology and doing basic math. But childless old Frau Merkel's fit of waving in young muslim men created a minority the relative size of the US black population in 1960, *in one year*. There may be 80 million Germans, but there aren't 80 Germans of breeding age. There are about 10 million German males in the current breeding generation--and fewer coming in the next one. Those men Merkel imported--if not sent back--will either replace a large number of German men in breeding German women, or will eventually be allowed to bring in their own women from the old country. So effectively Merkel created a 10% minority group--a nasty, contentions, non- assimilating one--roughly scale of the US's black population, and created not via a long history of slavery, or through the remnants of conquered peoples, or a long history of imperial conquests ... in one year, in a fit of globalist preening pique.

Western Europe's in better shape than the US now, but its importing an even more troublesome and contentious minorities, who are growing in proportion very very fast.

Europe's native population is going to have to revolt and expel the invaders *right now* or it's doomed.

Nonsense. History has its impact and there’s no denying demographics–having Africans around–has its effect. But the US was 90% white when i was a pup. But more than demographics, it was *culturally*, morally, legally very very white–without apology.

Right, and it was recognized as such even by Jews like Mel Brooks and Buck Henry. After Max asks “The Craw” why he kidnapped so many blondes if he only wanted Princess Ingrid, the Craw responds, “Unfortunately, Mr. Smart, all Americans look alike to us.”

If there were a modern-day nation full of Puritans - Christians like the ones who founded some of the first European colonies in what would eventually become America - I'd be demanding that we keep them out at all costs.

Or, for that matter, any Christians at all from about more than five hundred years or so ago. Their beliefs simply aren't compatible with our society at all, in any way.

There's a modern equivalent to Christianity of five hundred years or more ago, of course, and it's called 'Islam'. Who knows what it might be like, five hundred years from now? I have no idea, and it doesn't matter, because we're dealing with here and now.

Yep, a bunch of Europeans with that contemptible ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ nonsense – nope, we don’t want any of that now, do we?

watching you on your youtube channel is like watching the Special Olympics .

Why are people so unkind?

Well, truthfully, I should have known better than to post the striptease video. In my defense, I will point out that it was pretty blurry.

And the one with the cat was … disturbing. I readily admit that I went too far.

But I don’t think my singing is that bad. If nothing else, my enthusiasm for ABBA compensates for my other deficiencies.

My newest video, which should be uploaded sometime this weekend, features the improved version of my interpretive-dance routine. This time, I’m using a Finnish cover of Laura Branigan’s “Self Control”:

The immigration Act of 1990 was far more detrimental to American Demographics, it created the Greencard Lottery, increased legal immigration by 50% and created the H1B visa program to name just 3 aspects of the bill which need to be reversed. This Bill was signed just 4 years after Amnesty was granted to 3 million Mexicans. The two measures effectively altered America for good.

The immigration Act of 1990 was far more detrimental to American Demographics, it created the Greencard Lottery, increased legal immigration by 50% and created the H1B visa program to name just 3 aspects of the bill which need to be reversed. This Bill was signed just 4 years after Amnesty was granted to 3 million Mexicans. The two measures effectively altered America for good.

Oh please. What silliness. Just stop.

The 1990 Act was essentially just an increase from 500,000 to 700,000, with some modest tightening of the extended family chain migration and some additional PC stupidity–homosexuals, AIDs patients, diversity lottery, TPS countries. (H1-B is in the 1965 Act. The foreign students i went to grad school with in the late 70s\early 80s, were all aware of the H1 program. Getting off F1 and onto J1 or H1 was standard path for staying in the US.)

Comparing it to the major revision that was the 1965 act–dramatically altering both the source and numbers–is just stupid.

Numbers matter, but going to hell 5/7ths as fast is … still going to hell!

And honestly, folks who go “wow, America in 1970 after the 1965 Act was still a really white nation, but by 2000 after the 1990 Act it’s all gone to hell” …. i don’t know what to say. If you’re that innumerate why are you reading Steve’s blog?

the number of immigrants greatly increased starting in 1990 , due to a combination of the amnesty program and the new immigration law. in 1990 1.8 million Greencards were issued.

from 1965-1985 just 500,000 green cards were issued per year. From 1990 to 2010 we issued 950,000 greencrads per year plus an addition 90,000 Hib work visas each year.

if the 1990 immigration law was never passed we would have 12 million less Legal Immigrants today. No Diversity Lottery Program , No H1b Visas and English would still be a requirement for citizenship. while the 1965 act was bad for America, if we had kept immigration at the same levels we had from 1965-1985 our situation would not be dire.

Unfortunately, as loony as this stuff is --- and it's pretty loony --- it does bring to light the problem for immigration restrictionists; specifically, respectable politicians and idea men on the right using fear of terrorism as a pretext for closing the borders, when the truth is we really are trying to preserve the majority European racial composition of our country, just like this professor alleges. We're not allowed to say that, of course, because that's racist, so we have to frighten the horses with visions of jihadists streaming across the southern border. Even the border wall I take to be largely symbolic. If somebody really wants to get in, they can probably pull it off. But if we build the thing, in 20 or 40 years our kids and grandkids will at least be reminded that there's this thing called a border and that attempts by the Los Angeles City Council to effectively merge with Mexico might be unconstitutional, or something.

My reaction to this article is, “I wish.” Because I think the Trump administration actually does care too much about terrorism. They also care about restricting immigration period, and less so restricting non-legacy American immigration.

Were the “real ” thesis accurate my reaction would be “So what?” Why the hell can’t we make it a goal to have fewer Muslims?

“Oooh, Me so stupid for hangin’ around with Carifornia’s sh*t-ribs and other fringes..
Oooh, Me was soo gung-ho to vote for Hirary because Trump vevy, vevy rejsis…
Oooh, Me now no job, and Me so not ra ra ra for Janet Dykolitano and her little Indians!”

“…”US taxes should be used to create jobs in the US, not in other countries,” said Kurt Ho, a systems administrator who was quoted in the union’s press release.

Ho was required to train his replacement as a condition of getting his severance pay…

Ho, who earns about $100,000, told the LA Times that he spent two days training his replacement in a process that UCSF called “knowledge transfer.”

“He told me he would go back to India and train his team and would be sending me e-mails with questions,” Ho said.”

Stephen Miller should pick up this low-hanging fruit, before Main Smear Media convince normies that Russians are coming!

If you can train your replacement in 2 days, why was this job worth $100,000 to begin with? They said that their IT costs had tripled in the last 5 years. The labor market in SF is very tight. Even so, $100K still won't let you afford decent housing there.

They had the right idea by outsourcing. It was right to give the unionized, overpaid and underqualified Mr. Ho the heave ho. "System administrator" probably means "data entry clerk". But they should have move these jobs to a low cost state in the US Midwest instead of Bangalore.

"Oooh, Me so stupid for hangin' around with Carifornia's sh*t-ribs and other fringes..
Oooh, Me was soo gung-ho to vote for Hirary because Trump vevy, vevy rejsis...
Oooh, Me now no job, and Me so not ra ra ra for Janet Dykolitano and her little Indians!"

"..."US taxes should be used to create jobs in the US, not in other countries," said Kurt Ho, a systems administrator who was quoted in the union's press release.

Ho was required to train his replacement as a condition of getting his severance pay...

Ho, who earns about $100,000, told the LA Times that he spent two days training his replacement in a process that UCSF called "knowledge transfer."

"He told me he would go back to India and train his team and would be sending me e-mails with questions," Ho said."

Stephen Miller should pick up this low-hanging fruit, before Main Smear Media convince normies that Russians are coming!

If you can train your replacement in 2 days, why was this job worth $100,000 to begin with? They said that their IT costs had tripled in the last 5 years. The labor market in SF is very tight. Even so, $100K still won’t let you afford decent housing there.

They had the right idea by outsourcing. It was right to give the unionized, overpaid and underqualified Mr. Ho the heave ho. “System administrator” probably means “data entry clerk”. But they should have move these jobs to a low cost state in the US Midwest instead of Bangalore.

“Welcome to Sweden, strapping young refugee. Here is your rifle, the front is in that direction. Yes, finally you can have your vengeance on the Russians. Hey, come back!”

Well, that would be the best case, don’t forget we got a lot of those. But rather it seems a long series of dumb decisions are converging like chickens coming home to roost; great work Swedish leaders. You know that money you could have spent on rearming Sweden? Already spent on refugees.

If the US-born children of Mexican/Central American immigrants were much, much better at expressing themselves in Spanish than in English, then I think it would make sense to say they're only "technically" fluent in English. But I suspect in almost all cases these kids' English is as serviceable as their Spanish, in which case you have to choose between saying a) they're not fluent in any language, or b) they're bilingual. You can be bilingual even if you're functionally illiterate in both languages.

Agreed. I’m saying they can’t read, write, or speak well in either language. They can often employ only rudimentary English and marginally better Spanish (or the other way around).

A few years ago, I made a point of reading every single Dilbert comic that (at that time) had ever been published. I had already read most of the books, going back to Shave the Whales. (There was an early one - was it Always Postpone Meetings with Time-Wasting Morons? - that was totally original, none of its content having appeared in the daily strip.)

In the beginning, Dilbert was the butt of every joke - most strips focused on his pathetic lack of success with women. It wasn't until three or four years in that Adams decided to focus on workplace humor.

The only other strip I've read in its entirety (several times) is Calvin and Hobbes.

If the US-born children of Mexican/Central American immigrants were much, much better at expressing themselves in Spanish than in English, then I think it would make sense to say they're only "technically" fluent in English. But I suspect in almost all cases these kids' English is as serviceable as their Spanish, in which case you have to choose between saying a) they're not fluent in any language, or b) they're bilingual. You can be bilingual even if you're functionally illiterate in both languages.

I’ve had “ESL” students where their home language is listed as Spanish, yet I have spoken basic Spanish to them and they did not understand.

Their “Spanish” has a lot of slang & English words in it. Almost nothing like the Spanish that is taught to Americans learning it as a second language, which is based off the Colombian dialect because it is supposedly the clearest version of Spanish in the world.

Also, these are not indigenous children who speak native languages, either.

The immigration Act of 1990 was far more detrimental to American Demographics, it created the Greencard Lottery, increased legal immigration by 50% and created the H1B visa program to name just 3 aspects of the bill which need to be reversed. This Bill was signed just 4 years after Amnesty was granted to 3 million Mexicans. The two measures effectively altered America for good.

Oh please. What silliness. Just stop.

The 1990 Act was essentially just an increase from 500,000 to 700,000, with some modest tightening of the extended family chain migration and some additional PC stupidity--homosexuals, AIDs patients, diversity lottery, TPS countries. (H1-B is in the 1965 Act. The foreign students i went to grad school with in the late 70s\early 80s, were all aware of the H1 program. Getting off F1 and onto J1 or H1 was standard path for staying in the US.)

Comparing it to the major revision that was the 1965 act--dramatically altering both the source and numbers--is just stupid.

Numbers matter, but going to hell 5/7ths as fast is ... still going to hell!

And honestly, folks who go "wow, America in 1970 after the 1965 Act was still a really white nation, but by 2000 after the 1990 Act it's all gone to hell" .... i don't know what to say. If you're that innumerate why are you reading Steve's blog?

the number of immigrants greatly increased starting in 1990 , due to a combination of the amnesty program and the new immigration law. in 1990 1.8 million Greencards were issued.

from 1965-1985 just 500,000 green cards were issued per year. From 1990 to 2010 we issued 950,000 greencrads per year plus an addition 90,000 Hib work visas each year.

if the 1990 immigration law was never passed we would have 12 million less Legal Immigrants today. No Diversity Lottery Program , No H1b Visas and English would still be a requirement for citizenship. while the 1965 act was bad for America, if we had kept immigration at the same levels we had from 1965-1985 our situation would not be dire.

The 1990 Act took a bad situation and made it worse.
The 1965 Act took a very, very good situation and made it bad.

And a good part of that 40 million--perhaps the most transformative part--is that the state (politicians, courts, bureaucracy) refused to enforce the law against illegal aliens, the '86 amnesty disaster legalized a bunch of them allowing them to legally bring in spouses and relatives, and we have 15-20 more illegals awaiting the next amnesty.

So you are saying that the rate of increase of the native born whites was faster than that of blacks? I don't know the stats but it strikes me that the American slaves were well fed (maybe a healthier diet than the masters - lots of healthy collard greens, sweet potatoes, etc. and just a little meat - exactly what is now touted as a healthy diet),and that it was in the master's interest that the slaves be fruitful and multiply. Most of the 40 million American blacks are descended from less than 1/2 million slaves landed from Africa over 2 centuries so there must have been pretty hefty increase. I'm not saying that it was fun to be a slave but their lifestyle was probably a lot healthier than the way many people live today - healthy diet, lots of sunshine and exercise, no obesity, etc.

In contrast, the Spanish and Portuguese treated their slaves much worse and they died from tropical diseases . Brazil alone received almost 5 million Africans.

So you are saying that the rate of increase of the native born whites was faster than that of blacks?

JackD, probably impossible to reach a definitive conclusion. Both groups were fecund. Anecdotally from my own genealogical research, my paternal great-grandfather had 15 children; this was turn-of-the-century rural Illinois. My great-grandfather was 1 of 6 siblings while his his wife (my great-grandmother) was 1 of 7. My great-grandfather’s father was 1 of 8; again, this is rural Indiana/Illinois, several generations past my Dad’s ancestor’s arriving in the early/mid 1700s (part of Hackett-Fischer’s Scots-Irish migration). This pattern also repeats in my mother’s rural mid-South (Carolinas, Tennessee, Kentucky) lineage.

The census data is inconclusive before 1850, but US total population in 1790 at the first census was approximately 3.9 million, 694,000 (17.8%) counted as slaves. By 1850, the population was 23.2 million, with 19.5 million listed as white and 3.6 million listed as black (18%), so, about the same ratio as 1790. So you can assume very similar levels of fecundity during that 60 year period. After that, the latter half of the 19th century saw the increasing influx of the next Great Wave of European immigrants which ended around 1920 and decreased the black ratio of the population as seen over the next 150 years.

Any conclusions about the period before 1790 requires more time to research than I am willing to commit to this blog comment.

Looking at that US population growth from 1790 to 1850, per Steve's thesis of Affordable Family Formation, America in that period was a pretty great place for raising a family (with the exception of the African portion of the population).

So you are saying that the rate of increase of the native born whites was faster than that of blacks?

JackD, probably impossible to reach a definitive conclusion. Both groups were fecund. Anecdotally from my own genealogical research, my paternal great-grandfather had 15 children; this was turn-of-the-century rural Illinois. My great-grandfather was 1 of 6 siblings while his his wife (my great-grandmother) was 1 of 7. My great-grandfather's father was 1 of 8; again, this is rural Indiana/Illinois, several generations past my Dad's ancestor's arriving in the early/mid 1700s (part of Hackett-Fischer's Scots-Irish migration). This pattern also repeats in my mother's rural mid-South (Carolinas, Tennessee, Kentucky) lineage.

The census data is inconclusive before 1850, but US total population in 1790 at the first census was approximately 3.9 million, 694,000 (17.8%) counted as slaves. By 1850, the population was 23.2 million, with 19.5 million listed as white and 3.6 million listed as black (18%), so, about the same ratio as 1790. So you can assume very similar levels of fecundity during that 60 year period. After that, the latter half of the 19th century saw the increasing influx of the next Great Wave of European immigrants which ended around 1920 and decreased the black ratio of the population as seen over the next 150 years.

Any conclusions about the period before 1790 requires more time to research than I am willing to commit to this blog comment.

Looking at that US population growth from 1790 to 1850, per Steve’s thesis of Affordable Family Formation, America in that period was a pretty great place for raising a family (with the exception of the African portion of the population).

imagine the graph without the 1965 act - it would have carried on going down

the halt on immigration in 1924 is why the graph was going down - a foreign born immigrant who was ten in 1924 would be 51 in 1965 - as people who'd immigrated before 1924 died off the graph would have carried on going down

so you really have two graphs overlaying each other - the 1924 one where the numbers were decreasing overlaid by the 1965 one where the numbers started increasing again

initially the two trends cancelled each other out - new arrivals cancelled out by the last of the pre 1924 group dying - when the last of the 1924 group were gone the graph shoots up

(as well as all the other stuff that happened later like amnesties etc)

Your points are well taken and are a call for someone with animation skills to illustrate these trends using moving lines.

As much as I am convinced there are population genetic interests behind a lot of immigration ideology/policy, there is also a thick veneer of people not understanding the movement of numbers across time.

Ask your average immibot about the exponential function of a fixed rate of increase/decrease, and they’ll stare blankly and insist a 5 or 10 percent increase isn’t much (rather than a doubling every 14 or 7 years).

the number of immigrants greatly increased starting in 1990 , due to a combination of the amnesty program and the new immigration law. in 1990 1.8 million Greencards were issued.

from 1965-1985 just 500,000 green cards were issued per year. From 1990 to 2010 we issued 950,000 greencrads per year plus an addition 90,000 Hib work visas each year.

if the 1990 immigration law was never passed we would have 12 million less Legal Immigrants today. No Diversity Lottery Program , No H1b Visas and English would still be a requirement for citizenship. while the 1965 act was bad for America, if we had kept immigration at the same levels we had from 1965-1985 our situation would not be dire.

our situation would not be dire.

FIFY: our situation would not be *as* dire.

The 1990 Act took a bad situation and made it worse.
The 1965 Act took a very, very good situation and made it bad.

And a good part of that 40 million–perhaps the most transformative part–is that the state (politicians, courts, bureaucracy) refused to enforce the law against illegal aliens, the ’86 amnesty disaster legalized a bunch of them allowing them to legally bring in spouses and relatives, and we have 15-20 more illegals awaiting the next amnesty.

So you are saying that the rate of increase of the native born whites was faster than that of blacks? I don't know the stats but it strikes me that the American slaves were well fed (maybe a healthier diet than the masters - lots of healthy collard greens, sweet potatoes, etc. and just a little meat - exactly what is now touted as a healthy diet),and that it was in the master's interest that the slaves be fruitful and multiply. Most of the 40 million American blacks are descended from less than 1/2 million slaves landed from Africa over 2 centuries so there must have been pretty hefty increase. I'm not saying that it was fun to be a slave but their lifestyle was probably a lot healthier than the way many people live today - healthy diet, lots of sunshine and exercise, no obesity, etc.

In contrast, the Spanish and Portuguese treated their slaves much worse and they died from tropical diseases . Brazil alone received almost 5 million Africans.

“So you are saying that the rate of increase of the native born whites was faster than that of blacks?”

Yes, except it’s not me saying it, it’s the US Census Bureau. And, as already mentioned, it continued until the 1930′s (i.e., the founding of the welfare state). Incidentally, after the “civil rights” era and consequent ramping up welfare in the 1960s and 1970s, the black reproductive advantage over whites (of every kind) skyrocketed. So the government (i.e., taxpayers) is literally paying to race-replace.

Your points are well taken and are a call for someone with animation skills to illustrate these trends using moving lines.

As much as I am convinced there are population genetic interests behind a lot of immigration ideology/policy, there is also a thick veneer of people not understanding the movement of numbers across time.

Ask your average immibot about the exponential function of a fixed rate of increase/decrease, and they'll stare blankly and insist a 5 or 10 percent increase isn't much (rather than a doubling every 14 or 7 years).

Dollars to donuts they won’t be aware of the perils of Compound Interest either? Explains a lot about the current level of personal indebtedness.

Sorry you're right it was Scott Adams the cartoonist I confused you with .

Ah.

A few years ago, I made a point of reading every single Dilbert comic that (at that time) had ever been published. I had already read most of the books, going back to Shave the Whales. (There was an early one – was it Always Postpone Meetings with Time-Wasting Morons? – that was totally original, none of its content having appeared in the daily strip.)

In the beginning, Dilbert was the butt of every joke – most strips focused on his pathetic lack of success with women. It wasn’t until three or four years in that Adams decided to focus on workplace humor.

The only other strip I’ve read in its entirety (several times) is Calvin and Hobbes.